Studia Islandica - 01.07.1963, Qupperneq 94

92
more clearly, if one examines the distribution over smaller parts, sec-
tions of 5000 words, in the various sagas. Such an examination of the
“Snorri texts” and a selection of the comparison material is accounted
for in Table 2 (p. 15). The outcome confirms that the low frequency
of epic nú is a constant and characteristic trait in Heimskringla and
Egla. Together, the Tables 1 and 2 thus give very strong support to
the view that both works have one author: Snorri Sturluson.
The frequency of the synonymous phrases til þess er (at) and þar
til er (at) ‘till’ points in the same direction, though not quite as dis-
tinctly. In comparison with a voluminous material of ca. 751000 words
it appears — as shown in Table 3 (pp. 17—18) — that Heimskringla
and Egla favour til þess er in a remarkable way. Thus Egla has 29
instances of til þess er, but 5 only of þar til er; i. e. the former phrase
is 5.8 times as frequent as the latter. Of the 28 various texts in the
comparison material there is but one — Gísla saga Súrssonar — where
the quotient (3.0) is higher than that of Heimskringla (2.3). As many
as 22 of these texts have a “negative” quotient, i. e. in them þar til er
is more frequent than til þess er.
That Egla in this case — as in that of epic nú — reveals a still
more marked profile than Heimskringla, is only what was to be ex-
pected in view of the nature of the two texts. Snorri’s individual
traits as an author would naturally have greater possibilities to unfold
themselves in the family saga Egla than in the Kings’ sagas of Heims-
kringla, which are to a great extent based on written sources, only
slightly revised by Snorri.
2. Some preliminary conditions for a determination of the author-
ship of Laxdæla saga on philological grounds. (Pp. 19—26). The
problem of the place of Lazdœla in the development of Icelandic saga
writing was touched upon in the author’s Snorri-Egfa paper (Studia
Islandica 20). On certain philological grounds it seemed very probable
that, in the series of the largest and most famous family sagas, Lax-
dcela’s position chronologically would be just after Egla, which is com-
monly held to be the earliest.
In the present investigation, the interest is focused upon Laxdœla.
To my knowledge no serious attempt has hitherto been made to de-
signate the author of the saga. In the introduction to his edition in
íslenzk fornrit V, Reykjavik 1934, Einar öl. Sveinsson discusses the
qualifications required for composing Laxdœla, and the persons likely
to possess them. He looks round among the younger Sturlungs and
points to Ólafr Þórðarson hvítaskáld, who was Snorri Sturluson’s ne-
phew and an elder brother of the famous historian Sturla Þórðarson
(1214—1284). Sveinsson does not, however, regard Ölafr as the author