Gripla - 01.01.1975, Qupperneq 83

ÍSLENDINGADRÁPA AND ORAL TRADITION 79
consider that the detailed and accurate knowledge shown of the places
described in the sagas points to the existence of oral versions which
were current in those areas.
These arguments, however, have little effect on the confirmed scep-
tics. To them, the account of the Reykhólar wedding feast is extremely
unreliable, especially since it was not written until long after the event
and contains no reference to íslendingasögur in oral form, only fom-
aldarsögur. Even less to be tmsted is Þorsteins þáttr sögufróða, since
the description of the events which he is supposed to have recounted
is of purely literary origin, based on foreign motifs. There is no men-
tion in any of the saga-groups, except in the íslendingasögur them-
selves, of material which they contained having ever existed in oral
form, and this can not in itself be accepted as reliable evidence. It is
quite clear that in some of the later sagas, references to oral versions
of the story are included simply to deceive the reader and induce a
sense of tmst in the saga. References to specific persons may be
viewed in the same light. It has also long been recognized that the
verses in the later sagas were composed as the saga was written, and
that certain verses in the earlier sagas also appear to be suspect, as
for example in Egils Saga; in recent years the verses in the sagas have
come under increasingly heavy attack, such that none of the íslend-
ingasögur may now be considered secure in this respect. Genealogies
were amongst the earliest material to be written in Icelandic, as may
be seen from the First Grammatical Treatise, but they need not ne-
cessarily have been more than an empty list of names. Detailed local
description may also demonstrate nothing more than the fact that the
author of the saga was well acquainted with that specific territory.
In his interesting book, Úber die Entstehung der Islandersagas,
Walter Baetke attempts to demonstrate that there are no oral versions
supporting the íslendingasögur and that they are works of purely orig-
inal composition. My severest criticism of the book is that at one
point the argument clearly breaks down and suddenly postulates the
existence of an oral tradition.5 It is possible to make various criticisms
5 ‘It must be admitted that both during the saga-period, as well as in later times,
there were, here and there, certain recollections, frásagnir, or anecdotes concerning
the characters and events of the period in circulation in Iceland.’ Ibid., p. 80 (trans-
lated).