Gripla - 01.01.2003, Blaðsíða 72

70
GRIPLA
lendingasögur (Borgfirðinga sggur, lxxix-lxxx). Opposing this view, Bjami
Guðnason revives and extends the earlier opinion of Hugo Gering, that Bjarn-
arsaga is a highly derivative text, its clumsy style attributable to the author’s
attempts to string together material freely adapted from a wide range of other
sagas:9
Höfundur Bjamarsögu seilist eftir yrkisefni til ritheimildar og getur
hennar að engu. Hann dregur um leið hulu yfir hana með því að færa
aðföngin í nýtt samhengi, sníða hana að söguefni sína og varast líkindi
í orðafari ... Bjamarsaga er eins og dauf skuggamynd ritheimilda
sinna, og heimildakönnun hennar verður af þeim sökum fólgin í því að
greina strjál nöfn og máðar línur á tjaldi, sem er bæði torvelt og taf-
samt, eins og glámskyggni fræðimanna í þessum efnum ber með sér
(1994, 74).10
9 In his edition of Eyrbyggja saga (cited by Bjami Guðnason 1994, 78 n. 29) Gering argued
(against Boer (1893, xxxiii) and Finnur Jónsson (1920-24,1 507,510)) that two of the verses
of BjQm Hítdœlakappi derived from those of BjQm Breiðvíkingakappi, supporting this by
reference to ‘der ganze charakter der Bjamar saga, die ihre motive von iiberallher
zusammengebettelt hat (die rivalitat der beiden dichter, die verlobung der heldin mit ihrem
geliebten kurz vor dessen abreise ins ausland und ihre verheiratung mit dessen gegner aus der
Gunnlaugs saga, die erbschaftsreise des Þórðr und die heerfahrten des BjQm im osten aus der
Eigla, die ehebmchsgeschichte u.a. aus der Eyrbyggja); dafiir auch der ganze zusammenhang,
in dem die vísur hier und dort mitgeteilt werden. Man vergleiche die detaillierte erzahlung im
40. cap. der Eyrbyggja, wo alle die kleinen nebenumstande, auf die sich die vísa 27 bezieht,
anschaulich in der prosa geschildert werden, mit der farblosen darstellung im 21. cap. der
Bjamar saga ... und man kann nicht einen augenblick ungewiss sein, wo das original und wo
die kopie zu suchen ist’ (Gering 1897, xxiii-xxiv). Sigurður Nordal, on the contrary, was
equally convinced that ‘sé nokkur tengsl milli Eyrb. og Bjamar s. (og að því tel eg Gering
ekki hafa fært sannfærandi rök), þá er miklu sennilegra, að Bjamar s. sé þar veitandi en
þiggjandi’ (Borgfirðinga sggur, lxxxix). Bjami Guðnason argues that Bjarnar saga derives
material from Heiðarvíga saga, Laxdœia saga, Njáls saga, Óláfs saga helga and — less
confidently — Gísla saga, Hallfreðar saga and Kormáks saga, as well as those listed by
Gering.
10 ‘The author of Bjarnar saga snatches at a written source for subject matter and does not
acknowledge it at all. In the process he conceals it by placing the borrowing in a new context,
shaping it to fit the subject of his story and preserving the similarity of phrasing ... Bjarnar
saga is like a dull mirror-image of its written sources, and for that reason the investigation of
its sources must take the form of the interpretation of scattered names and faded threads in a
tapestry, which is both difficult and time-consuming, as the blindness of scholars in these
matters clearly demonstrates.’