Gripla - 20.12.2017, Qupperneq 101

101
turvetenskaplig belysning. Ritstj. Kristinn Jóhannesson, Karl G. Johansson og
Lars Lönnroth, 96–120. Gautaborg: Göteborgs universitet, 2000.
Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir. „Jómsvíkinga saga. Sérstaða, varðveisla og viðtökur.“
Doktorsritgerð, Háskóli íslands, 2016.
Þórdís Edda Jóhannesdóttir og Veturliði Óskarsson. „the Manuscripts of Jóms-
víkinga saga.“ Scripta Islandica 65 (2014): 9–29.
Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson. „Editing the Three Versions of Gísla saga Súrssonar.“
Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability and Editorial Interpretations of
Old Norse Saga Literature. ritstj. Judy Quinn og Emily Lethbridge, 105–121.
odense: odense university Press, 2010.
S U M M A R Y
Three Versions of Jómsvíkinga saga
Keywords: Jómsvíkinga saga, textual variation, aM 291 4to, Holm perg 7 4to, aM
510 4to
Jómsvíkinga saga is amongst the oldest Icelandic saga texts. It was most likely
written early in the thirteenth century, perhaps as early as around 1200. the
saga has been preserved in four different versions from the Middle ages in four
vellum manuscripts: aM 291 4to, Holm perg 7 4to, Flateyjarbók and AM 510
4to. In Flateyjarbók it has been adapted to the saga of Ólafur tryggvason in two
parts. Various scholars have made attempts to trace the relationships between the
preserved redactions by comparing them thoroughly, putting forward hypotheses
on how the texts may have developed and forming a stemma codicum. In this article,
it is argued that such methods cannot describe the redactions sufficiently and the
redactions need to be valued separately. a comparison of the content of the three
independent versions shows that the development of Jómsvíkinga saga can be a
testament to scribal ideas as well as to the expectations of the audience. Perg 7
suggests that the redactor, and possibly the audience in his environment, expected
a saga that was apposite and objective; the king is respected and stories that may
humiliate the ruler are not included. the slightly older aM 291 4to, however,
places less value on such respect; entertainment is at more of a premium than
deference to the king. In aM 510 4to, which is dated to the sixteenth century, the
text has been augmented with details, direct speech and conversations that do not
alter the course of events significantly but create more vivid images of people and
events and make explicit what older versions had hinted at more obliquely.
ÞrJÁr GErÐ Ir J Ó M S V Í K I N G A S Ö G U