Gripla - 01.01.2003, Side 65

INTERPRETATION OR OVER-INTERPRETATION
63
in 1728. Thus, fortunately, neither saga really belongs to the category of
‘works that no longer exist’. It is probably true, though, that the poor preserva-
tion of both texts has been responsible for a general lack of critical attention
that has made it dangerously easy for Bjami’s new dating to be accepted
without much scmtiny.
This endorsement flies in the face of the sceptical critical reception that
initially met Bjami’s theory. Túlkun Heiðanigasögu was reviewed by Fredrik
Heinemann in Alvíssmál in 1994 and by Theodore M. Andersson in Journal of
English and Germanic Philology in 1995, as well as by David Evans in Saga-
Book in 1997. All had reservations about its central thesis, which Evans said
‘leaves me on the whole unconvinced’ (Evans 1997, 364). Andersson’s
verdict on the assertion of influence from Laxdœla saga on Heiðaniga saga,
crucial to the proposed late dating, was that ‘the criteria seem to me quite
uncertain’ (Andersson 1995,451), and on the saga’s awkwardness of style, ‘it
remains difficult to imagine that the level of writing in Heiðarvíga saga post-
dates the prose standard established by such masterpieces as Egils saga, Gísla
saga, and Laxdœla saga' (450). In the nature of things, Bjami’s Festschrift
article on the date of Bjarnar saga has received even less evaluation, although
it is criticized in the introduction to my translation of the saga (Finlay 2000,
1-lii). In a recent survey of saga literature, published in the same year as
Bjami’s book, Vésteinn Ólason deferred judgement, commenting on Bjami’s
reading of Heiðaniga saga: ‘Þetta sýnir hve ótraustar em niðurstöður um
aldur íslendingasagna, en rétt mun að bíða átekta og sjá hvemig röksemdum
Bjama famast þegar aðrir fræðimenn taka að grandskoða þær’ (1993, 113)
[this shows how unreliable are conclusions about the age of the Sagas of
Icelanders, but it is necessary to await developments and see how Bjami’s
arguments fare under the scmtiny of other scholars], and acknowledging his
theory on Bjarnar saga only in passing: ‘Lengst af hefur verið talið að hún sé
fremur gömul, eða frá fyrri hluta 13. aldar, en það hefur nýlega verið dregið í
efa’ (98) [It has usually been considered that it is rather old, or from the earlier
part of the thirteenth century, but doubt has recently been cast on this]. But the
further evaluation anticipated here, and which such a thorough and radical
study as Túlkun Heiðarvígasögu deserves, has not yet taken place (see also
Vésteinn Ólason 1998, 253 n. 46). This article aims to address Bjami’s claims
in more detail, placing them in the context of some comments on the
methodology of saga dating.