Gripla - 2020, Blaðsíða 19

GRIPLA18
In the case of Eyjólfs saga, he added a splitting line before chapter 32 (which
is commonly referred to as Þórarins þáttr ofsa), to indicate that it is out of
place in the saga.39 The decision to separate the saga into various episodes
through the added headings and the creation of a composite text that incor-
porated segments from both redactions had a profound effect on the saga’s
reception as highly episodic, and has been heavily criticized.40
Guðbrandur Vigfússon and F. York Powell edited and translated
Ljósvetninga saga in their posthumous Origines Islandicae compilation of
historical texts. In their edition they decided to not include the chapters
following Guðmundr’s death (that is, chapters 22 and onwards). This
decision was both due to the irrelevance of the period after Guðmundr
inn ríki’s death to their project, as well as their assertion that this segment
is “much inferior” to the part focused on Guðmundr.41 Like Guðmundur
Þorláksson, Guðbrandur and Powell also prefer the A-redaction readings for
the common chapters but the C-redaction readings for the divergent part,
and therefore use 561 for chapters 1–4 and 19–21, but the C-redaction 162
and its paper copies for chapters 5–18, as well as the end of chapter 21.
In his íslenzk fornrit edition of Ljósvetninga saga, Björn Sigfússon
prioritized the A-redaction over the C-redaction, both in terms of pre-
ferring 561’s readings over the C-redaction paper copies in the common
sections of the saga, but also in the printing of the A-redaction text above
the C-redaction text and in larger letters in the divergent chapters. Björn
contends that Guðmundur Þorláksson’s edition and its dividing of the
saga into two parts and Guðmundar saga into þættir interfered with the
understanding of the saga and led to fallacious interpretations.42 Björn
39 See n. 7.
40 See, for instance, Albert Ulrich Bååth, studier öfver Kompositionen i några Isländska ätt-
sagor (Lund: [Gleerup], 1885), 1–2; Erichsen, Untersuchungen, 70; Björn Sigfússon, Um
Ljós vetninga sögu, 4–5. Björn Magnússon ólsen, “íslenzkar fornsögur gefnar út af hinu
íslenzka bókmenntafélagi: I. Glúma- og Ljósvetningasaga. Khöfn 1880,” tímarit Hins
íslenzka Bókmentafélags (1880): 266–7. See also Magerøy, sertekstproblemet, 10, 13, and n.
38 regarding Guðbrandur and Powell’s criticism. On Björn Sigfússon’s further criticisms
see below. Guðmundur would most likely have responded thusly: “Ljósvetninga saga er svo
auðsjáanlega safn af smáþáttum, að eg hefi ekki hikað mér við að skipta henni niður,” Glúma
og Ljósvetninga saga, iii.
41 Origines Islandicae, ed. and transl. Guðbrandur Vigfússon and F. York Powell, 350.
42 Ljósvetninga saga, ed. Björn Sigfússon, xxiii, ft. 1. In Um Ljósvetninga sögu Björn stresses that
Erichsen’s misunderstanding of the text’s flow stems from Guðmundur’s forced division
into parts and interpolated episode titles (8).