Gripla - 01.01.2000, Page 247

UM UPPRUNA MORKINSKINNU
245
Sandaaker, Odd. 1996. Ágrip og Morkinskinna. Teksthistoriske randnotar. Maal og
minne 1996:31-56.
Siguður Nordal. 1914. Om Olafden helliges saga. En kritisk underspgelse. Kaup-
mannahöfn.
Sigurd Ranessöns Proces. 1877. Gustav Storm gaf út. Kristiania.
Storm, Gustav. 1873. Snorre Sturlassöns Historieskrivning. En kritisk undersögelse.
Kaupmannahöfn.
Sverrir Tómasson. 1974. Vinveitt skemmtan og óvinveitt. Maukastella færö Jónasi
Kristjánssynifimmtugum 10. apríl 7974:65-68. Reykjavík.
Sverrir Tómasson. 1992. Konungasögur. Islensk bókmenntasaga 1:358-401. Vésteinn
Ólason ritstýrði. Mál og menning, Reykjavík.
Turville-Petre, Gabriel. 1953. Origins oflcelandic Literature. Oxford.
Unger, C.R. 1868. Fortale. Flateyjarbok. En Samling afnorske Kongesagaer med ind-
skudte mindre Fortællinger om Begivenheder i og udenfor Norge samt Annaler.
III. Kristiania.
SUMMARY
Morkinskinna, the manuscript of Norwegian royal history, is preserved in a manu-
script with the same name ffom the latter part of the thirteenth century. The work itself
is considered to be older, from about 1220. For the past century scholars have specu-
lated whether the preserved version is similar to or different from the original compo-
sition. Gustav Storm assumed they were similar, but Finnur Jónsson and Gustav
Indrebp agreed that the older Morkinskinna (Original Morkinskinna) was very differ-
ent from the extant version, and that most of the þættir and various other material was
interpolated. However, they differed as to whether Original Morkinskinna should be
considered a manuscript of Norwegian royal history comparable to Heimskringla and
Fagurskinna or a collection of sagas about individual kings. Bjami Aðalbjamarson
compromised between these points of view, but later scholars have generally followed
Indrebp.
The article discusses the premises underlying these assumptions and points out
that they are not based on a frrm foundation, and simply reflect negative value judge-
ments of the extant work. Scholars have also gone too far in using textual arguments
based on a comparison of two manuscripts to reconstmct an “original” text. The
author considers that such approaches are inapropriate, and that it is not possible to
claim that certain parts of the text are younger than others by hunting for “errors”.
Heimspekideild Háskóla Islands
Arnagarði við Suðurgötu
Reykjavík
armannja@hi.is