Gripla - 20.12.2006, Side 141

READING FOR SAGA AUTHORSHIP 139
concepts of saga authorship is not entirely dependent on historical arguments
about the evolution of medieval literature, but rather can include reference to a
wide variety of behaviour and representation present in the sagas themselves.
It is apparent from the list of examples given above that an analysis of the
functions of saga authorship based on secondary authorship is textual and
relies heavily on close analysis of characterisation in the sagas. In this respect,
the approach can be tied in with scholarship by those interested in the scope
and depth of characterisation in the family sagas. Secondary authorship tends
to highlight authorial skill and differences within the saga corpus and in this
way supports scholarship on saga characterisation by Vésteinn Ólason,21
Cook,22 Foote, Schach,23 and Einar Ól. Sveinsson.24 Additionally, the sense of
authorship developed by Bagge in his various studies of medieval historio-
graphy, particularly his discussions of the educative strand in these works, the
effect of their episodic structure, and the close connection of character and
history in the sagas,25 suggests medieval Icelanders attached great value to
21 See, e.g., Vésteinn Ólason 1998:esp. 98-99, 101-106. On Vésteinn Ólason’s desire for in-
creased scholarly attention to characterisation, see 135-138.
22 Cook stresses that the characters of the family sagas are interesting “in their own right”
(1973: 88). See also Cook 1989 and 1992. For an early example of a psychological approach
to the sagas, see Hight (1928-1929), who observes that despite the minimal vocabulary of
inner life in the sagas, ‘an act here, a word there, will often reveal to the attentive reader the
whole secret of a situation’ (70). See also Wilson 1969.
23 See esp. Schach 1978, where the author lists the main forms of character portrayal in the
sagas, including introductions, contrast, juxtaposition, descriptive passages, and what is de-
scribed as ‘character by instalments’ (see 254-257) or the repetition of a characteristic for a
particular effect. See also Schach 1972 and 1977 for slightly earlier indications of Schach’s
scholarship, which can be regarded as a leading attempt to shift focus from structure to so-
phisticated saga characterisation.
24 Einar Ól. Sveinsson’s discussions of Brennu-Njáls saga are the best illustration. Cf. Lönn-
roth, 1970:esp. 155-158; Gurevich 1992a; and Miller 1992:esp. 105. Both Gurevich and
Miller argue for disposition-based characterisation in the sagas. See also the socio-linguistic
approach to emotions in Heinrichs (1972:esp. 25-28); and Dronke’s interpretive method in
her discussion of Brennu-Njáls saga (1981:esp. 5).
25 Bagge, in his study of Heimskringla, argues that Snorri Sturluson was more than a compiler
because he ‘reflected on what to include or not’ (1991:31), a definition which would see the
compiler of Sturlunga saga in the category of author (see, e.g., Tranter’s comparative analysis
of Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar; Guðbrandur Vigfússon 1878:xcix-cxii) and which cer-
tainly dispels any doubt about Snorri Sturluson’s status as an author. As Andersson points out,
narrative control of history (and for what end that control is sought) is an important metaphor
for Bagge: concerning the account of the Battle of Fimreite in Sverris saga, Bagge writes,
“the author not only fails to give an account of Sverrir’s strategy but narrates the events in a