Saga - 2011, Side 139

emic exercise; my discussion of the documents engages with the
arguments of a number of scholars who have attempted to classify
and date all extant documents, instead of trying to recreate them by
emendations, corrections or any other editorial practice. (That all
documents written at a certain period should be analysed in their
entirety was an unavoidable premise of my historiographical analy-
sis.) Yet one of Helgi Skúli’s persistent criticisms of my work is that
I have engaged with scholarly arguments which he deems „obso-
lete“.7 This is not the place to consider the rights and wrongs of
Helgi Skúli’s assessment of what is worthy or unworthy of scholar-
ly attention, but his belief that I have discussed old-fashioned theo-
ries, preferring to discuss the theory of certain scholars at the
expense of others, allows him to conclude that my analysis of past
scholarship is misleading.8 This, I think, is not the case, and I believe
that my analysis of past scholarship, as well as of the documents,
stands for itself. With the exception of an oversight about King
Magnús Hákonarson’s participation in King Hákon Hákonarson’s
royal affairs — something which affects only a small part of my
overall argument — I have no corrections to make to my main thesis.
But I shall take this opportunity, in response to Helgi Skúli’s article,
to expand some points from my previous research. I shall also
address a very important part of my argument which Helgi Skúli
leaves out in the above-mentioned summary of my reasons for
arguing that the documents were fabrications, that is, their sudden
appearance in the fifteenth century. My close analysis of the text of
the documents and their historical context was a means of under-
standing this historiographical phenomenon.
I shall start with the mistake which crept into the last part of my
argument; that is, the portion which discusses the agreement known
as Gizurarsáttmáli or Gamli sáttmáli 1262. Gizurarsáttmáli suppos-
edly represents the agreement, mentioned in the saga accounts,
made between the Icelanders of the Southern and Northern Quart ers
of the country and the King of Norway in 1262. This document is
a response to „gamli sáttmáli …“ 139
7 Helgi Skúli Kjartansson, „Gamli sáttmáli — hvað næst?“, p. 139: „… séu birt í
Fornbréfa safni en sér ekki ástæðu til að fara um þau nema örfáum orðum —
kenningin um þau er löngu úrelt“, and p. 140: „ólíkt kenningu Jóns Sigurðs -
sonar sem sérfræðingar hættu að rökstyðja fyrir hundrað árum“.
8 Helgi Skúli Kjartansson, „Gamli sáttmáli — hvað næst?“, p. 137: „Svo var það
einmitt þessi sannfæring sem fyrst lét undan við nánari aðgæslu, því að greinar -
gerð Patricíu fyrir stöðu þekkingarinnar reynist í meginatriðum villandi“.
Saga haust 2011 NOTA_Saga haust 2004 - NOTA 11/24/11 9:52 AM Page 139