Gripla - 20.12.2016, Side 26

GRIPLA26
aldrei verið til?62 Það væri hliðstætt, og sagan skrifuð á sömu öld og
okkar sögu. Þessa háskólagengnu hálfvita okkar ætti að kæra fyrir
landráð. Ef þetta er ekki rétta nafnið á þessari starfsemi, hvað heitir
hún þá? Mér er spurn, hvað eigum við að gera með handritin heim
ok fá þau í hendurnar á þessum mönnum?” 63
But even among the “university educated” there were those such as
Óskar Halldórsson, who felt that Sigurður nordal went too far with his
interpretations in Hrafnkatla and that the saga, rather than being complete
fiction, did owe something to regional traditions.64 nevertheless, contin-
ued research on the primary sources and changes in our understanding of
62 after reviewing the primary sources, Sverrir Jakobsson comes to the conclusion: “Man
kan nemlig godt behandle Harald Hårfagre som en mytisk person, hvis en myte defineres
son en fortelling om begivenheter som ikke fant sted, men til tross for det var en del af
stammes eller et folks bevissthet on sin fortid”, “‘Erindringen om en mægtig Personlighed’:
Den norsk-islandske historiske tradisjon om Harald Hårfagre i et kildekritisk perspektiv,”
Historisk tidsskrift 81 (2002): 213–30 at 228. this does not seem to have caused particular
outrage in norway.
63 ‘the latest research is this, that Ingólfur Árnarson never existed … What does one think the
norwegians would say to that if they were told that Heimskringla is an absolutely unreliable
history to its core and that Haraldur hárfagri never existed? that took place at the same
time and the saga written at the same time as our history [Landnámabók]. These university-
educated half-wits of ours should be prosecuted for high treason. If that is not the correct
name for this kind of activity, what is one to call it? I am asked, what does it benefit us to
involve ourselves in “Manuscripts Home!” and to put them in the hands of these people?’,
“úr Öldungadeildinni,” Tíminn 55.66 (March 20, 1971): 6 [quotation, col. 4] (this article
appeared exactly one month before the celebrated return of the first manuscripts to Iceland
from Denmark, april 22, 1971). reprinted in Helgi Haraldsson, Engum er Helgi líkur, 72–76
at 74–75. Likewise: “Mér þykir til dæmis svo vænt um njálu, að ég mundi aldrei svívirða
hana með þvi að ræða um það við neinn, hvort hún er skáldsaga frá rótum” [‘I am so fond of
Njáls saga, for example, that I would never dishonour it by discussing with anyone, whether
or not it is fiction to the core’], “orðið er frjálst: náttúruskyn Þórhalls og ljóðasmekkur
Steingríms,” Tíminn 52.177–178 (august 23–24, 1968): 8, 15; 2, 15 [quotation, pg. 8, col.
4). reprinted in Engum er Helgi líkur, 93–105 at 96. this work of Helgi’s appears to have
sold sufficiently well for a second volume to appear: Helgi Haraldsson, Skýrt og skorinort:
Helgi á Hrafnkelsstöðum ræðir umbúðalaust um menn og málefni, ed. Jónas Kristjánsson
(reykjavík: Örn og Örlygur, 1974), edited by no less than the director of the Stofnun Árna
Magnússonar. Here the “university educated” come in for their share of praise and the tone
is much less strident.
64 óskar Halldórsson, Uppruni og þema Hrafnkels sögu, fræðurit 3 (reykjavík: Hið íslenzka
bókmenntafélag, 1976). See Shaun f. D. Hughes, “Óskar Halldórsson, Uppruni og þema
Hrafnkels sögu …” Scandinavian Studies 52 (1980): 300–08, a review which attempts to
position Óskar’s work in the then ongoing debates about Hrafnkels saga.