Gripla - 20.12.2017, Blaðsíða 233

233
11.4% of the text, but they account for 53 of the total tally of conversations,
that is, more than 50% of all the conversations. If these 53 are subtracted
from the total of 98, the residue is 45, and that is more in line with the 56
conversations in Heimskringla. It should also be noted that the two cases
of exceptionally long conversations in Morkinskinna, with 39 utterances
in one case and 40 in the other, are from respectively “Hreiðars þáttr”
(Íf 23:153–157) and “Sneglu-Halla þáttr” (Íf 23:276–278). apart from
Morkinskinna the konungasögur are tight-lipped indeed.
Furthermore, the conversations in the konungasögur are not analogous
to what we find in the Íslendingasögur. I have not found a single example
of what I termed transactional conversation in the Íslendingasögur. Quite
predictably most of the conversations are assigned to royalty and the high
aristocracy: 7 of 9 conversations in Orkneyinga saga, 11 of 13 conversa-
tions in oddr Snorrason’s Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, 66 of 98 conversations
in Morkinskinna, 16 of 22 conversations in Fagrskinna, 8 of 9 conversa-
tions in Heimskringla I, 21 of 27 conversations in Heimskringla II, 12 of 21
conversations in Heimskringla III, and 10 of 15 conversations in Knýtlinga
saga. It is more difficult to make such a tally in Færeyinga saga since the
exact social status of the faroe Island farmers is not always transparent. In
the sagas that can be counted, 151 of the 212 conversations engage royal or
high-status persons, that is, roughly 70%. the percentage of high-status
conversations in the Íslendingasögur is surely in the single digits.
not much effort has been made to differentiate between the Íslendinga-
sögur and the konungasögur in terms of style or narrative practice, but it is
evident that one of the distinguishing features is the amount of conversa-
tion and the sort of subject matter deployed in such conversation. further
study of the konungasögur might reveal other clear markers that set the two
types apart. Such study could also shed light on quite incidental problems.
for example, Eyrbyggja saga has no conversation at all in the first 24 pages,
then records a replique that is a verbatim duplicate of words found in Gísla
saga. that not only bolsters the supposition that the author of Eyrbyggja
saga borrowed the replique from Gísla saga but perhaps suggests as well
that this model inspired him to make more general use of conversation
further along.3
3 on the relationship of these two texts see the remarks of the editors in the introduction to
Íf 4, XXI–XXII.
A NOTE ON CONVERSATION IN THE SAGAS