Gripla - 2020, Blaðsíða 18

17
edition gave only brief mention to the divergence between 561 and the
C-redaction, stating that the former narrates chapters 13–18 “með öllum
öðrum orðum.”37 In what could be seen as a controversial decision (though
not by the present authors), their edition also prefers AM 485 4to and AM
514 4to’s readings over those of the medieval 561 in the common segments
of the saga (chapters 1–4 and 19–21), thus again preferring the younger
reading over an older one.
Guðmundur Þorláksson’s 1880 Glúma og Ljósvetninga saga, which was
edited with the assistance of Finnur Jónsson, is probably the best criti-
cal edition of the saga to date and is still of great utility, mostly due to its
marking of most of the variants between the major manuscripts.38 In the
parallel chapters (i.e. chapters 1–4 and 19–21), Guðmundur usually opts
for the readings offered in the A-redaction, while in the divergent chapters
he prefers the C-redaction rendering of events, with the A-redaction text
added as an appendix. In what seems to be his most influential decision,
Guðmundur decided to split the saga into two parts: Guðmundar saga and
Eyjólfs saga. He further split Guðmundar saga into six parts:
1. Deilur Þórgeirs goða ok sona hans
2. Kvánfang sörla Brodd-Helgasonar (commonly referred to as sörla
þáttr)
3. Reykdœla þáttr (commonly referred to as ófeigs þáttr)
4. vöðu-Brands þáttr
5. Þóris þáttr Helgasonar ok Þorkels háks
6. Draumr ok dauði Guðmundar ens ríka
A STYLOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF LJóSVETNINGA SAGA
bindi (Copenhagen: S.L. Möller, 1830). For example, in chapter 7 of the saga Þorgeir and
Þorsteinn prefer the AM 485 4to reading “eyrði allvel” (11r) over AM 162 c fol.’s reading
“dygdi alluel” (1v), “Syv Sagablade (AM 162 C fol., bl. 1–7),” ed. Jón Helgason, Opuscula 5,
Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana: 31 (1975): 47, or preferring AM 485 4to’s “Bæsá” (21r) over “[b]
ægis á” (2v), Jón Helgason, “Syv Sagablade,” 53.
37 Ljósvetnínga saga: Eptir gömlum hdr., ed. Þorgeir Guðmundsson and Þorsteinn Helgason,
unnumbered introduction.
38 Glúma og Ljósvetninga saga., ed. Guðmundur Þorláksson and indexed by Finnur Jónsson,
íslenzkar fornsögur. Vol. 1 (Copenhagen: Hið íslenzka bókmenntafélag, 1880). Not
everyone shares this opinion. Guðbrandur Vigfússon and F. York Powell criticized the
edition, stating that “there are too many worthless various readings, the text is based on
a second-rate MS., and important clauses are skipped,” 348. They then add, in a display
of admirable generosity, that “one would not be too severe on this work, for to edit this
Saga is no task for a prentice hand, and the state of the text demands exceptionally delicate
treatment,” 348.