The Lexical Landscape: Verbs and Nouns

At the same time, vera (to be) can signal subtler transformations when paired with modifiers like líkr (like) or í -líki (in the form of). These either temper the ‘depth’ or degree of the transformation, or shift attention away from the state itself and towards the adopted form. For example, in Egils saga einhenda: ‘Kerling lét þá líta í glerit, ok sýndust þeir þá svá stórir, at þeir váru tröllum líkir’ (‘then the old woman had them [Egill and Ásmundr] look into the mirror, then they seemed so big, that they were like trolls’).4 Ch. 15 (pp. 356–7). The verb sýnask (to seem) and the adjective líkr suggest partial transformation, blurring the line between illusion and reality, leaving us in doubt as to whether any change has materially occurred. Similarly, there is a degree of separation between the underlying self of the transformed character and their altered form in the description of the princess in Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar, quoted above, which employs the phrase vera þvílíkr (to be just like) to describe her altered state as the ogress. These more equivocal phrases describe transformations into humanoid rather than animal forms, perhaps hinting that transforming into another person was narratively more complex than the adoption of animal form.

By contrast, vera í -líki emphasises a more concrete transformation, describing characters who assume animal form. In phrases like ‘þeir váru í sela líkjum’ (‘they [Loki and Heimdallr] were in the form of seals’),5 Skm., ch. 8 (p. 19). the language emphasises tangible embodiment. This phrasing is common in prose contexts and particularly in legendary narratives,6 E.g., Vǫls., ch. 14 (p. 25); Rm. (pp. 298, 300). and aligns in fornaldarsögur and riddarasögur with other transformation-verbs like verða at (to become) and bregðask í -líki (to change into the form of), all of which indicate material metamorphosis rather than illusion.7 E.g., Bós., ch. 14 (ed. Jiriczek, pp. 58–9); Bær., ch. 31 (ed. Cederschiöld, p. 119). Bósa saga was composed before 1350. Bærings saga was composed at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Notably, vera í -líki is rare in Íslendingasögur, where explicit transformations are generally avoided.8 It is, however, used in Eyrbyggja saga (ch. 20), when Katla disguises her son Oddi from Arnkell: after seeing Katla grooming a goat, Arnkell wonders, ‘ætli þér eigi, at Oddr hafi verit í hafrslíkinu?’ (ed. Einar Ól. Sveinsson, pp. 51–2): ‘Do you not think, that it was Oddr in the form of a goat?’. Note that it is Arnkell who uses the phrase vera í -líki, rather than the narrator (who uses a different lexis to describe the changes depicted, discussed below), suggesting that it is perhaps only acceptable for a character (and not the saga-narrator) to believe in the authenticity of this transformation. Eyrbyggja saga was likely composed mid-thirteenth century.

The verb bregða covers a wide range of meanings in Old Norse, often linked to physical movement.13 ‘bregða’, ONP, https://onp.ku.dk/onp/onp.php?o10770 [accessed 15 August 2022]. When denoting transformation, it can be paired with a prepositional phrase in both active and middle voices, indicating transformations of others (bregða í -líki,14 ProlSnE(W), ch. 4 (ed. Finnur Jónsson, p. 5); Gylf., ch. 50 (p. 36); Skm., ch. G56 (p. 2). HjǪ., ch. 21 (p. 513); Hkr., ch. 5 (I, 15). bregða yfirlitum)15 Clem., ch. 5 (ed. Carron, p. 32). Clemens saga is preserved in several thirteenth-century manuscripts. or self-transformation (bregða sér í -líki;16 Ldn(H), ch. 191 (p. 75); Gylf., chs 49, 50 (pp. 45, 48). Hauksbók (which preserves the cited version of Landnámabók) dates to the early fourteenth century. bregða sik -líki;17 Vǫls., ch. 5 (p. 8). bregða á sík -líki;18 ProlSnE(W), ch. 4 (p. 5); Gylf., ch. 2 (p. 7); Bret., ch. 27 (ed. Eiríkur and Finnur Jónsson, p. 271); ÓT, ch. 197 (II, ed. Ólafur Halldórsson, 88); ÓTOdd., ch. 60 (ed. Finnur Jónsson, p. 177); Hem. (ed. Fellows-Jensen, p. 40); Mar., ch. 45 (ed. Unger, p. 135); Martin, ch. 22 (ed. Unger, p. 618); Nik., ch. 9 (ed. Unger, p. 30); Clem., ch. 5 (p. 16). Breta saga survives in two recensions, preserved in fourteenth-century manuscripts. Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta is preserved in late fourteenth-century manuscripts, while Oddr Snorrason’s Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar is preserved in thirteenth-century manuscripts. Hemings þáttr was likely composed in the thirteenth century, and is partially preserved in Hauksbók. Maríu saga, Nikolaus saga and Marteins saga are all preserved in manuscripts from the thirteenth century onwards. bregða á sik -ham;19 Vǫls., ch. 1 (p. 3); Merlínusspá II 44 (SkP VIII, 173). Merlínusspá is preserved in Hauksbók (in Breta saga). bregða á sik ásjónu;20 Rém., ch. 6 (ed. Broberg, p. 23). Rémundar saga was composed in the mid-fourteenth century. bregða sér at yfirlitum;21 SigÞǫgl., ch. 30 (ed. Loth), p. 191. Sigurðar saga þǫgla was composed in the fourteenth century. bregða á sik sýn;22 ÓTOdd., ch. 60 (p. 177). bregða á sik mynd;23 Ant., ch. 17 (ed. Unger, p. 67). Antóníuss saga dates to the thirteenth century, and is preserved in the fourteenth-century AM 234 fol. bregðask í -líki;24 ÞorstVík., ch. 3 (p. 390); Ketils, ch. 5 (ed. Rafn, p. 131); Heiðr., ch. 9 (ed. Tolkien, p. 44); Bær., ch. 31 (p. 119); Skm., chs G58, 40 (pp. 4, 46). Ketils saga hængs dates to the thirteenth century. bregðask í -ham).25 Skm., ch. G58 (p. 4). These verb phrases are versatile, capturing transformations into animals, humans and even objects. While líki often follows the phrase bregða(sk) í, other nouns such as hamr (shape/skin), ásjóna (outward appearance), sýn (outward appearance) and yfirlit (outward appearance) appear too, reflecting a spectrum of transformations, from the substantial to the superficial. For animal transformations, líki and hamr pair with bregða, while ásjóna, sýn and yfirlit are used for humanoid transformations (see further Figure 1).

This group of phrases (especially bregða(sk) í) are particularly common across the corpus, especially in fornaldarsögur, riddarasögur, konungasögur, Snorra Edda and religious literature. However, they appear less frequently in poetry and in Íslendingasögur, where their use is more stylised and confined to specific settings. For example, in Ǫlkofra saga, bregða(sk) í líki is used in a derogatory nið accusation: ‘varðstu þá svo hræddur að þú brást þér í merarlíki’ (‘you became so afraid then that you turned into the form of a mare’).26 Ch. 3 (ed. Jón Jóhannesson, p. 92). Broddi uses this statement to insult Eyjólfr, not to describe a literal transformation. The imputation is that Eyjólfr’s cowardice figuratively makes him a mare. Ǫlkofra saga was composed c. 1250. Likewise, verða is used in Gull-Þóris saga to denote a transformation speculated among an internal audience but not verified by the narrator: ‘þat hafva menn fyrir satt, at hann hafve at dreka orðit’ (‘people believe that he turned into a dragon’).27 Ch. 20 (ed. Kålund, p. 47). Gull-Þóris saga was composed in the early fourteenth century. As Lucie Korecká notes, the cautious depiction of transformations in Íslendingasögur may stem from the genre’s commitment to a realistic narrative mode, avoiding direct or overt depictions of shapeshifting to maintain the story’s credibility.28 Wizards and Words. The Old Norse Vocabulary of Magic in a Cultural Context (Munich, 2019), p. 139.

Finally, two notable outliers belong to this grouping: the reflexive verbs hamask (rarely used for explicit theriomorphic transformation)29 The only instance I have found within my time-frame is the prose interlude in Helgakviða Hjorvarðssonar (p. 260), where it is used with the prepositional phrase í -líki. The verb is more often associated in texts with dispositional/psychological changes and acts of violence than theriomorphism per se. and (um)snúask (lit. turn oneself around), which translates the Lat. mutantur in learned translations, such as Stjórn: ‘umsnuaz segir hann. ok at aullum likaminum snuaz þeir um ok uerda at dyrum’ (‘he says they mutate and they mutate their bodies entirely and they become animals’).30 Ch. 24 (p. 91). Cp. Isidore, Etymologiae XI.iv.2.

Grípisspá also uses these nouns interchangeably, to refer to the process by which Gunnarr and Sigurðr swap appearances (‘þvíat litum víxla,/ er á leið eruð’ – ‘you shall exchange appearances when you are on the road’)35 Grp. 37 (p. 292). and change themselves back again (‘þá hǫmum víxlið/ er it heim komið’ – ‘then you’ll exchange skins, when you come home’).36 Grp. 43 (p. 293). In both stanzas, the noun referring to appearance participates in alliteration, and therefore the lexical variation may be due to the poet’s need to fulfil metrical requirements. Nonetheless, the fact that the terms can be used interchangeably suggests a degree of semantic equivalence. Sigurðr further reflects on the transformation, asking:

Skipta litum also appears in riddarasögur (alongside the less common skipta um mynd ok ásjónur);39 DínDr. (p. 21). as in legendary sagas, it typically refers to reciprocal exchanges of appearance between two humans.40 Sams., ch. 21 (ed. Wilson, p. 44), Vilm., ch. 5 (ed. Loth, p. 148). Samsons saga fagra dates to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century, while Vilmundar saga dates to the fourteenth century. This ability to skipta litum is often depicted as an acquired skill, in Vǫlsunga saga41 Ch. 29 (p. 48): ‘skipta nú litum, sem Grímhildr kenndi þeim’ (‘they exchanged appearances, as Grímhildr taught them’). and in Sigrgarðs saga frœkna, where the transformation is contextualised through an extradiegetic aside about the historic ubiquity of shapeshifting abilities: ‘hier med skiptu þeir litum, þviat þat kunnu marger menn vel i þann tima’ (‘Sigrgarðr and Jónas exchange appearances, for there were many people who could do this at that time’).42 Ch. 7 (ed. Loth, p. 64). Sigrgarðs saga frœkna is a fifteenth-century riddarasaga. The ability to skipta litum is similarly cast as a craft in Ynglinga saga, where Óðinn

In this description, Óðinn not only changes ‘litum’ but ‘hǫmum’ (‘skin/shape’) and ‘líkjum’ (‘body/form’) at will, and when he does so, he ‘var’ (‘was’) an animal. This passage evinces a complex and distinctive combination of transformation terms (skipta, vera, hamr, litr, líki) that elsewhere suggest a variety of shapeshifting techniques and processes. Ynglinga saga frames all these facets of transformation as part of a learnt íþrótt (skill), encompassing both metamorphosis and metempsychosis, and evoking the conventional mythological use of transformation for travel. The use of skipta is especially interesting, since skipta litum/hǫmum usually describes reciprocal exchanges in appearance between two humans, not a shape-change or indeed ‘soul-projection’ into the form of an animal. Ynglinga saga’s synthesis of various types and terms of shapeshifting may serve a purpose unique to this text – perhaps, as Stephan Grundy suggests, ‘Snorri’s attribution of this skill to Odinn is understandable only in its context: that is, as a euhemeristic account of the god-as-sorcerer’.44 ‘Shapeshifting’, p. 108.

Indeed, the closest textual parallels to Ynglinga saga’s description of Óðinn’s shapeshifting are those of villainous magicians: Grímr ægir in Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga rapidly and voluntarily shapeshifts into all kinds of animals;45 Ch. 2 (p. 167): ‘Hann brást oft í ýmissa kvikenda líki ok skipti hömum svá skjótt’ (‘he changed into various animal forms and exchanged shapes so quickly’). while Simon Magus, the archetypal discredited sorcerer of the medieval world, ‘tok hann at skipta likium a ser oc asionum sinum, sva at hann syniz stundum ungr enn stundum gamall, oc hafði ymsa manna alit eða kyqvenda’ (‘began to change his form and his appearance, so that he seemed sometimes young and sometimes old, and he had various human or animal appearances’).46 Tveggja postula saga Pétrs ok Páls, ch. 24 (ed. Unger, p. 306). The saga is preserved in AM 656 I 4to (fourteenth century). The vocabulary is slightly different, with Simon changing both body (‘likium’) and outer appearance (‘asionum’), but the use of skipta to refer not to an exchange of appearances between two figures is consistent with the descriptions in Ynglinga saga and Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga. The focus on external appearances (ásjóna and álit) is conventional for shapeshifting in hagiography, where transformation is often presented as superficial and deceptive.47 E.g., in Clemens saga, the phrase skipta yfirlitum describes how Simon Magus changes his appearance to ‘seem’ (sýnask) any age he likes (ch. 5 (p. 16)). The phrasing skipta yfirlitum, denoting transformation, features occasionally in hagiographic sagas (e.g., Maríu saga) and riddarasögur (e.g., Alexanders saga).

This portrayal aligns with clerical views of shapeshifting as demonic illusion, with transformation dismissed as trickery, and it is possible that Simon Magus served as a prototype for later literary depictions of Óðinn, as Philip Roughton suggests.48 ‘Stylistics and Sources of the Postola Sögur in AM 645 4to and AM 652/630 4to’, Gripla 16 (2005), 7–50 (p. 12 n. 9). Although Ynglinga saga’s description of Óðinn’s shapeshifting has been interpreted as reflecting pre-Christian Norse religious traditions, shamanic rituals and séances modelled on Sámi practices,49 See E. Heide, ‘The Term Leizla in Old Norse Vision Literature – Contrasting Imported and Indigenous Genres?’, Scripta Islandica 67 (2016), 37–64 (pp. 45–6); C. Tolley, ‘Sources for Snorri’s Depiction of Óðinn in Ynglinga saga: Lappish Shamanism and the Historia Norvegiae’, Maal og Minne 1 (1996), 67–79. Christian discourse offers an alternative perspective. In Augustine’s De civitate Dei, humans do not actually transform into animals: rather, demons use complex illusions to create the appearance of transformation. Augustine describes how ‘phantasticus hominis’ (‘a man’s phantom’) may appear to our senses in the form of an animal, even while the man’s body lies nearby, in a state deeper than sleep.50 De civitate Dei, ed. E. M. Sanford and W. M. Green (London, 1965), XVIII.xviii, p. 424. This account bears a curious resemblance to Óðinn’s shapeshifting in Ynglinga saga. While it is possible that the account does draw on cultural memory of shamanic rituals, it may also reflect Christian theological interpretations of transformation: as Haley-Halinski observes, although De civitate Dei does not appear in extant medieval Icelandic booklists, several Augustinian works were known in Iceland, and quotations attributed to him in biblical translations show significant familiarity with his writings.51 ‘Birds and Humans’, p. 197.

The verb sýnask appears in riddarasögur, fornaldarsögur, Íslendingasögur, konungasögur, hagiographic literature and Snorra Edda, referring to changes into the guise of humans, animals and objects. It often pairs with adjectives, conjunctions and nouns. For example, with an adjective, sýnask describes how someone appears to others – ‘syniz þu aullum monnum liotur og leidiligur’ (‘you will appear to all people ugly and hideous’).53 SigÞǫgl., ch. 21 (p. 158). Cp. EgÁsm., ch. 15 (p. 70). When paired with the conjunction sem (as, like) and a noun, it specifies the target form of a transformation – ‘synizt þu sem einn liotur suijna hirdir’ (‘you will appear like an ugly swine herd’).54 Ibid. Cp. HjǪ., ch. 22 (p. 516). Sýnask is also used without an accompanying conjunction, as in Eyrbyggja saga (‘Ok hefir þar verit Oddr, sonr hennar, er oss syndisk rokkrinn’ – ‘And that her son Oddr had been there, who appeared to us as a distaff’),55 Eb., ch. 20 (pp. 51–2). Cp. SigÞǫgl., ch. 21 (p. 158). and in the prepositional phrase sýnask í líki (‘appear in the form (of)’).56 E.g., Hem. (p. 40); Mar., ch. 132 (p. 879).

Sýnask frequently carries the implication of visual deception, where the form perceived by the viewer does not correspond to the subject’s true nature. In Mágus saga jarls, the change in appearance caused by an enchanted shield is described with the verb sýnask (‘huerr skylldi með hans asionu synaz sem skiolldinn bæri’ – ‘whoever carries the shield appears with Rǫgnvalldr’s appearance’),57 Mág. I, ch. 19 (ed. Cederschiöld, p. 38). while in the longer version of the saga the verb missýna (‘deceive one’s sight’)58 Mág. II, ch. 61 (p. 146). is used here, suggesting a semantic overlap between these terms in transformation contexts.

Even more suggestive is the frequent pairing of sýnask with sjónhverfing (sight-deception), in works ranging from the mythographic Gylfaginning59 Gylf., ch. 47 (pp. 42–3): ‘En sjónhverfingar hefi ek gert þér […] En sá kǫttr var eigi sem þér sýndisk’ (‘I have performed many sight-deceptions for you […] But that cat was not as it seemed to you’). to the hagiographic Maríu saga.60 Mar., ch. 132 (p. 879): ‘wakanda margar sionhuerfingar. Synduzt þeir honum stundvm i liki hunda, warga eda annarra grimmuztu dyra’ (‘waking to many sight-deceptions. They appeared to him for a while in the form of dogs, wolves and other fiercest creatures’). See also Eb., ch. 20 (p. 53). The term sjónhverfing renders Latin phantasiam61 Ant., ch. 10 (p. 59). and visiones phantasticas62 Stjórn, ch. 44 (p. 159). in religious translations, and is associated with the devil in konungasögur and riddarasögur.63 E.g., ÓT., ch. 187 (II, 140–1); Mírmanns saga, ch. 9 (ed. Slay p. 23). Mírmanns saga was likely composed in the fourteenth century. On the association between sjónhverfing and pagan magic, see S. Grønlie, ‘“Reading and Understanding”: The Miracles in Þorvalds þáttr ens víðfǫrla’, JEGP 112.4 (2013), 475–94 (p. 492). It refers to optical illusions, not physical changes. For instance, in Sigurðar saga turnara, a princess initially suspects her attacker to be a sjónhverfing:

Her realisation that the assault is real demonstrates that sjónhverfingar act solely on sight, leaving the physical world unchanged. This impression is corroborated by Harðar saga, where the protagonist is immune to such illusions (‘honum mátti öngvar sjónhverfingar gera í augum, því at hann sá allt eptir því sem var’ – ‘sight-deceptions could never act on his eyes, since he saw everything as it was’).65 Harð., ch. 11 (ed. Hast, p. 32). Harðar saga was composed in the fourteenth century. Similarly, in Antóníuss saga, devils’ transformations into the appearances of animals and humans are portrayed as sjónhverfingar that can be readily dispelled by the sign of the holy cross.66 Ant., ch. 17 (p. 67).

Unsurprisingly, narratives which describe transformations using the terms sýnask and sjónhverfing often also deploy verbs of sight (sjá, líta), emphasising how appearances are perceived by others. In Harðar saga, Skroppa’s illusions prompt Hǫrðr to warn his men that ‘eigi er hér allt sem sýnist’ (‘everything is not as it seems’).67 Harð., ch. 26 (p. 67). The narrator confirms that Skroppa ‘gerði sjónhverfingar’ (‘performed sight-deceptions’),68 Ibid. distorting the men’s perception:

Similar scenes appear in other Íslendingasögur (Gull-Þóris saga),71 Ch. 10 (pp. 23–4). fornaldarsögur (Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar,72 Ch. 8 (p. 403). Sturlaugs saga starfsama)73 Ch. 12 (ed. Zitzelsberger, p. 16). Sturlaugs saga was composed c. 1300. and riddarasögur (Mágus saga jarls II).74 Ch. 61 (p. 146). In these cases, transformations are described with the verbs sjá and/or líta but do not use the term sjónhverfing. Nonetheless, some of these accounts share motifs associated with sjónhverfingar, such as vanishing (vera horfinn) and loud noises (heyra gný/dyn mikinn).75 These motifs are linked in the Útgarða-Loki narrative in Gylfaginning; Gylf., ch. 54 (p. 57). In Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar,

While sýnask, sjá and líta appear in a range of genres, they are especially prevalent in Íslendingasögur (which do not employ verbs that emphasise transformation as a processual act, like bregða(sk) í -líki). By contrast, these verbs are absent in the shapeshifting-episodes found in eddic poetry.

The phrase fara í líki is versatile. It can refer to travelling across distances in animal form87 Hkr., ch. 33 (I, 271). or physically putting on or entering the form of an animal, semantically paralleling the phrase fara í klæði (put on clothing). However, this secondary meaning is more explicit when fara is used with hamr rather than líki. For example, in Vǫlsunga saga, Sigmundr and Sinfjǫtli ‘fóru í hamina ok máttu eigi ór komask’ (‘put on the skins and could not take them off’).88 Vǫls., ch. 8 (p. 11). Here, the hamir are described as physical pelts that exist in the material world (they ‘hengu í husinu’ – ‘hung in the house’),89 Ibid. rather than simply as assumed forms.

The concept of owning form or appearance also recurs in the phrases ljá -ham and fá -ham. These expressions treat hamr as a detachable property or physical object that can be lent or obtained at will, often appearing in mythological contexts involving eagle- or falcon-skins used for flight.94 Skm., ch. G56 (p. 2); Þrk. 3 (p. 422). Taka -ham also appears in mythic narrative and riddarasögur, and articulates transformation as physically grasping an object (‘tók hann sér arnarham ok flaug’ – ‘he took his eagle-skin and flew’),95 Skm., ch. G58 (p. 4–5). though such phrasing could also imply the figurative act of adopting an animal form more generally (i.e., ‘he took on eagle-skin’). The object-like nature of hamr is most pronounced in Alexanders saga: ‘[Sompnus] tekr nú fjaðrham er hann átti ok bindr á sik, flýgr siðan leiðar sinnar’ (‘Sompnus now takes the feather-skin which he owned and binds it on himself, then he flies away’).96 Alex., ch. 10 (ed. Finnur Jónsson, p. 70; see also p. 148). Alexanders saga is a prose translation of a Latin epic; it survives in manuscripts from the thirteenth century onwards. Here, the fjaðrhamr functions as a tool for flight without the need for actual transformation into bird form, unlike in Snorra Edda.97 See further M. E. Ruggerini, ‘Tales of Flight in Old Norse and Medieval English Texts’, VMS 2 (2006), 201–38.

The phrase taka -ham is primarily associated with transformations that enable flight, while the phrases taka við yfirlitum and taka á mik ásjónu/mynd describe transformations into the appearance of another human, often in contexts of disguise.98 ÞorstVík. 17 (p. 432); ÓTOdd., ch. 60 (p. 177); Mar., ch. 4 (p. 448). These verbs which emphasise ownership of form highlight transformation as material and authentic,99 Except when fjaðrhamr refers to an external device rather than a literal bird form. with the extent of the change varying according to the noun used alongside the verb.

The phrase draga fjaðrar (to wear feathers) occurs in Vǫlundarkviða, where strange women ‘flugu sunnan’ (‘flew south’),102 Vkv. 1 (p. 428). one of whom ‘svanfjaðrar dró’ (‘wore swan-feathers’).103 Vkv. 2 (p. 429). The prose introduction specifies that these women have ‘álptarhamir’ (‘swan-skins’), treated as tangible objects (‘þar váru hjá þeim álptarhamir þeira’ – ‘their swan-skins were next to them’).104 Vkv. (p. 428). While the implication is that the swan-skins enable flight, the text does not clarify whether they materially transform the women. By contrast, in Sǫrla þáttr, the phrase draga af -ham explicitly describes animal transformation. Loki, after turning into a flea to bite Freyja (‘verdr þa at einni fló’ – ‘becomes a flea’) reverts to his original form by shedding the flea-skin (‘þa dregr Loki af ser floar haminn’ – ‘he takes off the skin of the flea’).105 Ch. 2 (p. 276). Here, adopting a hamr is depicted as a mechanism for physical transformation.

The phrases fara í ham,106 The similar phrase fara í belg appears in the context of a transformation in Þiðreks saga af Bern, where Isungr dons a bear-skin and sews himself inside it. Þiðreks saga survives in a late thirteenth-century Norwegian manuscript (which is not discussed further here, since my focus is on Icelandic texts). fara ór hami and koma(sk) ór hami are central to the Vǫlsunga saga episode in which Sigmundr and Sinfjǫtli become wolves (discussed in detail in the previous chapter).107 Fara í ham and koma í ham are also employed in the fifteenth/sixteenth-century Tíodéls saga (based on Bisclaretz ljóð), in which Tíodél removes his clothes and puts on a bear-hamr. This episode is unusual in that, while prompted by the adoption of an external layer, the transformation nonetheless explicitly impacts the subjects’ cognitive abilities and behaviours: the two men now communicate with ‘vargsroddu’ (‘wolf-voices’), comprehending nonhuman language (‘Þeir skilðu báðir rǫddina’),108 Vǫls., ch. 8 (p. 11). while their behaviour reflects a mix of human and animal traits: with wolf-like aggression, Sigmundr bites Sinfjǫtli’s throat in anger, yet he later shows human remorse, tending to Sinfjǫtli’s injuries.109 Ibid. (p. 16).

The episode also foregrounds the loss of human agency, with the men trapped in wolf-form for ten days before they can remove the skins. Unlike voluntary transformations involving mythological hamir (such as feather/bird-skins enabling flight), this narrative underscores the dangers of unwieldy objects. Upon shedding their hamir, Sigmundr and Sinfjǫtli burn them to prevent further harm, a motif echoed in Gríms saga loðinkinna. After Lopthœna’s curse is lifted and she removes her trǫllkonuhamr (troll-woman-skin), Grímr burns it immediately: ‘dró haminn fram í eldinn, ok brenndi upp at kolum’ (‘he dragged the skin over into the fire, and it burnt to ashes’).110 GrL., ch. 2 (p. 151). A similar episode appears in the fifteenth-century Ála flekks saga.

A similar blend of object agency and involuntary transformation appears in Hrólfs saga kraka, where Bjǫrn is cursed to be a bear by day and human by night. His transformation is described in terms of the donning of a hamr, ‘steypist sijdann biarnar hamurinn yfer hann’ (‘then the bear-skin was cast over him’),111 Hrólf., ch. 20 (p. 58). with the passive voice (steypask) underscoring Bjǫrn’s helplessness. The bear-skin is an agent of change that Bjǫrn himself cannot control.

Texts employing this lexis often portray the transformative outer layer as concealing underlying nobility, with shapeshifting used to explore facets of social status as well as ontological boundaries. In Vǫlsunga saga, Sigmundr and Sinfjǫtli find the ulfahamir hanging above their previous owners, princes marked by the ‘digrum gullhringum’ (‘thick gold rings’) on their arms.112 Vǫls., ch. 8 (p. 11) In Hrólfs saga kraka, Bjǫrn’s bear-form is flayed by the kings’ men, and Bera retrieves a gold ring from beneath the bear-skin.113 Hrólf., ch. 20 (p. 59). In the M-version of Ǫrvar-Odds saga,114 Ǫrvar-Odds saga survives in three redactions: one from the early fourteenth century (preserved in SKB7 4to, known as S), one from the later fourteenth century (preserved in AM 344a 4to, known as M), and one from the fifteenth century. Oddr ‘næfrum spennir hann sik uppi ok niðri’ (‘wraps himself entirely in bark’),115 ǪrvM, ch. 38 (ed. Boer, pp. 118–20). Birch bark is used as a wrapping in early Scandinavian Christian graves, either covering the body or the coffin – a practice that Julie Lund interprets as providing an extra ‘skin’ in death (‘Fragments of a Conversion: Handling Bodies and Objects in Pagan and Christian Scandinavia, AD 800–1000’, World Archaeology 45.1 (2013), 46–63, p. 54). Perhaps Oddr’s transformation into the Næframaðr is connected with his unusually long lifespan, restoring his youth? becoming the ‘Næframaðr’ (‘Barkman’). He arrives at a king’s court, where he is offered (and refuses) fine clothing. While washing in the lake there, the king’s retainers notice a rip in Oddr’s bark cuff, revealing fine garments and an arm-ring beneath, marking his true identity:

While the skins donned and removed in these texts are usually nonhuman – animal or arboreal – the corpus is not without examples of human skin being used as an overlayer. In Bósa saga, Bósi and Smíðr flay their victims (‘fló Bósi belg af þeim báðum’ – ‘Bósi flayed the skin from them both’)117 Bós., ch. 12 (p. 55). to disguise themselves as the deceased, wearing their skins as nágrímur (corpse-masks). The verbs fœra í and fara í, commonly used elsewhere for donning clothing, describe the process:118 ‘fœra’, ONP, https://onp.ku.dk/onp/onp.php?o25350 [accessed 28 July 2022]. ‘Smiðr færði Bósa í aðra nágrímuna, en fór sjálfr í aðra’ (‘Smíðr put the mask from Sigurðr’s face onto Bósi and put the other on himself’).119 Bós., ch. 12 (p. 55). They also don the dead men’s garments as part of their transformation (as well as adopting their names): both fabric and flesh are manipulated to enable the disguise.

These lexical items are less consistently attested than the other phrases of transformation discussed, suggesting that their usage may be a conscious thematic or narratorial choice. They often entail a conception of transformation as hybridisation, where a second skin is laid over the body like clothing, such that two identities exist at once: in some cases, the layering impacts form and behaviour, resulting in a blend of these identities (as in Vǫlsunga saga), while in others, it functions more as superficial disguise (as in Bósa saga).

Líki, meaning form or body,121 It is derived from lík (body) not glíkr (like, resembling); R. Cleasby and Guðbrandur Vigfússon, An Icelandic-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1989), p. 392. However, the weak masculine noun glíki (equal, equivalent) is also widely spelled líki, and when used in the nominative singular form, is indistinguishable from the strong neuter noun líki (form, body). is the most adaptable noun, appearing widely in contexts of transformation across fornaldarsögur, riddarasögur, konungasögur, Snorra Edda, the Poetic Edda, religious texts and skaldic verse. However, it is rare in Íslendingasögur, where transformations are often portrayed as illusions. While líki is common in the Poetic Edda, five out of its seven attestations are in prose framings or interludes.122 Rm. (pp. 298, 300), Ls. (p. 421), HHv. (p. 260). The term appears only twice in the verses themselves,123 Ls. 24; HHv. 31. which otherwise prefer hamr (for transformations into animals and transformations that enable flight) and litr (for transformations into humans). Hamr and litr usually participate in alliteration in the verses, suggesting that their selection may have been influenced by metrical demands. The use of líki in prose contexts is interesting precisely because alliteration was not a factor shaping word choice; in turn, it aligns with the general preference for líki in Snorra Edda, where hamr is used only for bird-transformations, and litr only once (for Sigurðr and Gunnarr’s appearance-exchange).

Líki spans diverse transformations, including those into animals, humans and objects. Common animal forms it describes include birds – valslíki (falcon-form),124 Heiðreks, ch. 9 (p. 44). hanalíki (hen-form),125 HjǪ., ch. 9 (p. 472). arnarlíki (eagle-form),126 HHv., p. 260. svölulíki (swallow-form)127 GHr., ch. 16 (p. 280). – and dragons/snakes: drekalíki,128 Bær., ch. 31 (p. 118). drákonslíki (dragon-form),129 Anon., Heilagra meyja drápa 35, SkP VII, 913. ormslíki (snake-form).130 Skm., chs G58, 40 (pp. 4, 46). Human forms described by líki are less varied, often limited to mannslíki (man-form)131 GHr., ch. 14 (p. 59); Bær., ch. 31 (p. 119); Bret., ch. 271 (ch. 27). and konulíki (woman-form)132 Gylf., ch. 49 (p. 45); ÓTOdd., ch. 60 (p. 177), Mar., ch. 45 (p. 135). or forms associated with magic, such as vǫlvulíki (sorceress-form)133 Vǫls., ch. 8 (p. 13). and vitka líki (wizard-form).134 Ls. 24 (p. 413). Transformations into objects are extremely rare, but when they do occur, the term líki is used: hnotarlíki (nut-form),135 Skm., ch. G56 (p.2). steinslíki (stone-form),136 HHv. 31 (p. 265). nautsbelgs líki (cattle-skin-form).137 Ldn(H), ch. 191 (p. 75).

Hamr, meaning skin, pelt or shape, is commonly used to denote transformation in fornaldarsögur, riddarasögur, Snorra Edda, Poetic Edda, skaldic verse and kings’ sagas,138 In riddarasögur, animal-hamir are used as a mechanism for physical transformation (see, e.g., Gibbons saga, chs 15, 17), while fjaðrhamir are presented as appurtenances enabling flight rather than prompting transformation (Bret., ch. 12 (p. 248); Alex., ch. 10 (p. 148)). In konungasögur, hamr appears in descriptions of transformation in euhemerised mythological contexts (Hkr., ch. 7 (I, 18); Sǫrla, ch. 2 (p. 276)). In skaldic verse, it denotes transformation in mythological contexts (e.g., Þjóðólfr ór Hvini, Haustlǫng 2, SkP III, 434) and in níð accusations (Anon., Lausavísa from Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar 1, SkP I, 1073). but is absent from Íslendingasögur (where verbs of perception dominate)139 On the verb hamask and related hamr-compounds in Íslendingasögur, see below. and rare in religious texts (which prefer the nouns líki, mynd, yfirlit and ásjóna). When compared with líki, there is less variation in the transformation-outcomes that hamr describes: most often the hamr refers to bird-skin/shape that enables flight; less commonly, hamr refers to wolf-skin/shape, bear-skin/shape, troll-skin/shape and human- skin/shape.

Hamr is the noun of choice for mythological shapeshifting. In Snorra Edda, it is used exclusively for bird-transformations enabling flight (when a transformation into another animal or human is described, líki or litr is used instead).140 This pattern is maintained across the different manuscript witnesses of Snorra Edda. Although it is not always explicitly stated whether the bird-hamr is an external apparatus that enables flight, or an object causing physical transformation into a bird, several narrative examples imply the latter (as when Loki flies to Geirrøðr’s court, or when Óðinn changes í arnarham and Suttungr sees ‘flug arnarins’).141 Skm., ch. G58 (pp. 4–5). Unlike Snorra Edda, the eddic poems that involve bird/feather-hamir allow for these two simultaneous interpretations of hamir. In turn, the Poetic Edda employs hamr with more flexibility than Snorra Edda, using it to describe transformations into humans,142 Grp. 43. trolls143 Vsp. 39. and animals. In accordance with Snorra Edda, however, when hamr refers to an animal skin, the animal is always a bird; in such contexts, the association is implicitly144 Vkv. (p. 429). or explicitly with flight.145 Vm. 37, Þrk. 5. Certain gender distinctions are also notable: eagle-skins are used by male figures, while swan-, crow- and falcon-skins are associated with female figures (and Loki, whose gender is markedly fluid).

In fornaldarsögur, hamr is often presented as a detachable outer layer that enables transformation; narratologically, it is frequently tied to a loss of autonomy, with the wearer unable to remove it freely.146 E.g., in GrL., Vǫls. and Hrólf. Generally, the hamr impacts a subject’s exterior alone, leaving their underlying cognition and identity intact; this understanding of hamr is also emphasised in narratives where identity is recognised despite outward transformation: in Skáldskaparmál, Geirrøðr spots Loki in the valshamr, and ‘er hann sá augu hans þá grunaði hann at maðr mundi vera’ (‘when he saw his eyes he suspected him to be a man’).147 Ch. 18 (p. 24). Similarly, in Hrólfs saga kraka, when Bera sees Bjǫrn in the bjarnarhamr, ‘J þessum birne þikist hun kienna augu Biarnar k(ongz) s(onar)’ (‘in the bear she thought she recognised the eyes of Bjǫrn the king’s son’).148 Ch. 20 (p. 56). In turn, though Bjǫrn is cursed to become a bear in physical form and behave as an animal, ‘ölmum og grimmum’ (‘savage and grim’), with an excessive appetite that damages his own father’s property (‘og nitja þier þö ǫngua fædslu vtann fie fǫdur þijnz’ – ‘you will consume only your father’s livestock’), he is nonetheless cognizant of his situation (‘og skal þier þesse minning verre enn einginn’ – ‘and the memory shall be the worse for you than having none at all’).149 Ch. 19 (p. 55). This minning results in psychological continuity, and suggests that Bjǫrn is still Bjǫrn, despite changing into animal form.

Litr, meaning colour or complexion, denotes outward appearance in transformation contexts, often signalling superficial guise rather than material change: in Vǫlsunga saga, when Signý and the sorceress exchange litum and Signý sleeps with Sigmundr as the sorceress, it is Signý’s body that is impregnated, not the sorceress’s, and Signý makes clear that the child’s disposition is inherited from both Sigmundr as father and Signý as mother (see Chapter 4). Litr is not particularly common across genres: where it appears in fornaldarsögur, eddic verse and Snorra Edda, it refers to the appearance-exchanges that occur in the Sigurðr-cycle; it is, however, used more frequently in riddarasögur.150 E.g., Sams., ch. 21; Vilm., ch. 5. The nouns yfirlit, ásjóna and mynd likewise emphasise perceived form rather than material essence. These are prominent in religious texts, riddarasögur and konungasögur, where transformations are often illusory. Elsewhere, the term yfirlit is juxtaposed with skap (nature, temperament), suggesting a distinction between outward appearance and inner character.151 Fbr., ch. 12 (ed. Björn K. Þórólfsson, p. 84), AM 566 b 4to-version: ‘Var hann olikr feðr sinum ok sva frændum, bæði yferlitz ok sva i skapi’ (‘he was unlike his father and also his relatives, both in outward appearance and also in disposition’).