Gripla - 20.12.2016, Qupperneq 96

GRIPLA96
these two versions do not seem to be a function of different times or places
of composition. In this paper, it is argued that the two versions of the saga
use different means of engaging with the intended audience and may have
been written for different political purposes.
2. Scholarly reception of Þórðar saga hreðu
Scholarly opinion of the saga, especially the Complete version, has been
low and the saga has been roundly neglected in terms of literary analysis.
the lack of scholarly interest in the Complete version of Þórðar saga hreðu
may have something to do with the plot: as demonstrated by the summary
above, it is repetitive and predictable, lacking a tragic element. although
individual scenes and skirmishes are dramatic, and there are some amusing
characterisations and clever verses, the saga ends on a flat note without a
strong narrative arc. there is also a lack of intriguing legal action to add
political complexity to the story, and this has been taken by Vésteinn
Ólason, for instance, as a sign that the saga author was not striving for
verisimilitude comparable to that of the more classical sagas.10
the negative scholarly assessment of this saga began in the mid-
nineteenth century, when Guðbrandur Vigfússon put it in among a group
of sagas he termed “spurious sagas” that were “partly extemporisations on
“hints in Landnáma and other sagas” and partly pure fabrications “when
the very dregs of tradition have been used up”.11 The sagas thus designated,
including Þórðar saga hreðu, were published in 1959 in volume 14 of the
Íslenzk fornrit series, rather than with other Íslendingasögur in volumes 3 to
13, because they “eru taldar einna yngstar Íslendingasagna” [‘are considered
amongst the youngest Icelandic sagas’].12 once relegated to this volume, a
literal backwater of the corpus, it seems Þórðar saga hreðu’s scholarly repu-
tation continued to erode. Jónas Kristjánsson cites Þórðar saga hreðu as the
worst example of the “wildly exaggerated stories” that arngrímur Jónsson
relied upon for his Crymogæa,13 and Vésteinn Ólason characterizes Þórðar
10 Vésteinn ólason, Dialogue with the Viking Age: Narration and Representation in the Sagas of
Icelanders, trans. andrew Wawn (reykjavík: Heimskringla, 1998), 217.
11 Guðbrandur Vigfússon, as translated in Martin Arnold, The Post-Classical Family Saga
(Lewington nY: Edwin Mellen Press), 91.
12 Jóhannes Halldórsson, “formáli,” lxxv.
13 Jónas Kristjánsson, “the roots of the Sagas,” in Sagnaskemmtun: Studies in Honour of Her-