Gripla - 2020, Blaðsíða 74

73
the use of poetry in a prose setting can be plotted along a chronological
axis. Finally, while Jónas Kristjánsson uses Fóstbrœðra saga’s intertextual
connections and stylistic features to date the saga to the second half of
the thirteenth century, none of these really warrant the conclusion, and
Theodore Andersson has provided a more convincing explanation of the
saga’s connection to the sagas about óláfr Haraldsson than that given by
Jónas. All of these matters will be dealt with in turn, and I shall argue that
Fóstbrœðra saga is the product of an early attempt at creating a new kind
of historical narrative: namely, what would eventually come to be known
as ‘sagas of Icelanders’.
The debate about the date of Fóstbrœðra saga falls into two parts:
whether the so-called ‘digressions’ belong to the archetype or were added
later, and whether the saga is one of the earliest sagas of Icelanders, from
the beginning of the thirteenth century, or rather belongs late in that cen-
tury. I begin with the digressions.
Are the Digressions Original to the Saga?
Fóstbrœðra saga survives in a short, acephalous version, found only in
Hauksbók (AM 544 4to; below Hb), and in a long version, found in
Möðruvallabók and its transcripts (AM 132 fol.; below M), Flateyjarbók
(GKS 1005 fol.; below F), R (transcripts only: AM 142 fol. and AM
566 a 4to) and, acephalous and with a number of chapters missing, in
Bæjarbók (only four leaves preserved as AM 73 b fol., but there are several
transcripts, chief among them AM 73 a fol. and AM 76 a fol.; below B).11
Fóstbrœðra saga’s long version has attracted much scholarly interest, due to
its unique digressions of a ‘rhetorical, devotional or anatomical nature’.12
For my larger argument to be plausible, the additional text in the long
version must belong to the archetype of the saga. This hypothesis was
first proposed by Vera Lachmann and later – independently – by Sigurður
Nordal in his introduction to Fóstbrœðra saga in Vestfirðinga sǫgur.13 He
11 See the description in Fóstbrœðra saga, ed. by Björn K. Þórólfsson (København: Samfund
til Udgivelse af Gammel Nordisk Litteratur, 1925–27), iii–xliv.
12 Denne recensions mest iøjnefallande ejendommelighed er dens, i hele sagalitteraturen
enestaaende, udsmykninger og digressioner, af retorisk, gudelig, eller anatomisk art’ (Fóst-
brœðra saga, ed. Björn K. Þórólfsson, vii).
13 Vera Lachmann, Das Alter der Harðarsaga (Leipzig: Mayer & Mayer, 1932), 222–23;
Fó STBRœÐ RA SAGA: A MISSING LINK?