Studia Islandica - 01.06.1962, Qupperneq 192

190
(The comparatively high number for Grettla — 62 — can be ignored
in this connection. If on this point there are any influences of the two
sagas on one another, Njála must of course have been the one to have
done the influencing.) It is a piece of very clear evidence. And if one
turns to the more exclusive pair word series, i.e. that where the “triple
words” with Snorri have been omitted, the contours stand out even
more sharply. That is exactly what was to be expected, if the method
were to prove really effective. Now the share of Laxdœla (46) in the
total sum (123) of pair words has become almost three times as big as
that of Egla (16) and nearly twice as big as that of Eyrbyggja (25).
In a corresponding way an analysis of Table XIII reveals that the
pair word series strongly corroborates the assumed connection between
Grettla on the one hand, Laxdœla and Eyrbyggja on the other. (Pp.
46—47).
It would be of special interest if the pair word statistics could be
shown not only to trace more or less hidden connections between the
sagas, but also to indicate in what direction the influences had gone.
Then the method could become a valuable instrument in the study
of the chronological development of the saga literature.
A comparison between the Laxdœla-table (X) and the Njála-table
(XII) seems to indicate that when one saga is dependent on another,
as proved by the pair word system, then it is in the table of the depen-
dent i.e. later saga that this relationship is mainly, and perhaps ex-
clusively, revealed. If the same test is applied in the case of Grettla
on the one hand, Laxdæla and Eyrbyggja on the other, the result, how-
ever, is not entirely unequivocal. (Pp. 47—48).
Though one may not derive a general rule from the instance dis-
cussed, the pair word tables are cautiously explored with reference to
a certain controversial point of chronology: Which is the older saga,
Laxdœla or Eyrbyggja? (Pp. 48—49).
A more definitive contribution, however, to the solution of the last-
mentioned problem is provided by another fact to be obtained from
a study of the tables. A glance at the tables for Laxdœla, Eyrbyggja,
Njála and Grettla reveals that Laxdæla shows by far the closest con-
nection with Egla. As leading scholars agree that Egla is the oldest
among these five family sagas, the numbers given on pp. 49—50 seem
to allow of only one natural interpretation: that Laxdæla is the next
oldest. The clear testimony of the pair words might seem surprising.
That Egla and Laxdæla should be closely connected is very far from
obvious to everybody. On the contrary, most judges would stress the
distance between them in subject matter, characterization and general
tone. But if, indeed, it was Egla itself which the author of Laxdœla
had had as his only great prototype, then it would follow almost as