Gripla - 2020, Qupperneq 22

21
parataxis, while C-divergent tends towards more complex hypotaxis, and
chapters 1–4 do somewhat as well.47 Having compared the style of these
divergent chapters to the parallel chapters, she concludes:
Here one must accept a mix of sources within the written text trans-
mission. One scribe – be it that of 162 or an exemplar or that of 561
or an exemplar – took the middle section [chapters 13–18] from a
secondary source (either written or oral), presumably because the
main exemplar had a lacuna here, or because there was a source for
this part which he liked better… In other words, A is the result of
a mix of sources and C follows one consistent exemplar, or vice
versa.
Of these two options, the first is preferable. After all the vocabulary
and style of AX [A13–18, A-divergent] have some features that differ
from I [1–4] and II [19–21] (in A and in C [the parallel chapters]),
A STYLOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF LJóSVETNINGA SAGA
47 Erichsen, Untersuchungen, 56–58. She also provides an argument based on an analysis of
the narrative, stating that chapters 1–4 (in both redactions) are a summary of a lost, longer
rendering, pointing to, for example, Guðmundr inn ríki entering the saga without any
introduction, as well as the vagueness of the níð against Guðmundr that was circulated
by Þórir Helgason and Þorkell hákr. Erichsen, Untersuchungen, 66–70. Björn Sigfússon
firmly disagreed with Erichsen’s assertion that chapters 1–4 are an abbreviation, providing
several examples of characters entering a saga without an introduction (Um Ljósvetninga
sögu, 8–9, n. 2). He also responds to her opinion that the níð is unclear, arguing that she
failed to understand the art of the saga (Um Ljósvetninga sögu, 10). In the context of Þórir
and Þorkell’s níð see Tirosh, “On the Receiving End”, 120–122 as well as Yoav Tirosh,
“Argr Management: Vilifying Guðmundr inn ríki in Ljósvetninga saga,” Bad Boys and
Wicked Women. Antagonists and troublemakers in Old norse Literature, ed. Daniela Hahn
and Andreas Schmidt. Münchner Nordistische Studien 27 (Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag,
2016) 240–72. She further argued that the þættir stand out stylistically and from a narrative
perspective, but this is beyond the scope of the present research. Magerøy responded to
Adolfine Erichsen’s argument that chapters 1–4 were an abbreviated version of a lost text,
supporting this with a literary and linguistic analysis that shows a consistency between
the different parts of the A-redaction. “Den indre samanhangen i Ljósvetninga saga,”
norroena Et Islandica: Festskrift til Hallvard Magerøy På 75-årsdagen Den 15. januar 1991,
Utvalde Artiklar (Øvre Ervik: Alvheim & Eide, Akademisk Forlag, 1991) 63–91. This
analysis includes ch. 22–31 which, as mentioned above in reference to Guðvarður Már
Gunnlaugsson’s research, probably could not have been part of the A-redaction manuscript
561, which puts a question mark on Magerøy’s arguments.