Studia Islandica - 01.07.1963, Page 96

94
standing authority. Otherwise Finnur Jónsson only refers to a “close
slylistic inquiry” as a possible method of solving the problem — rather
optimistically, it seems: from where is the comparison material to be
had?
More attractive, i>erhaps, is the hypothesis that Ölafr Þórðarson
was the author of Knýtlinga saga, a chronicle of the Danish Kings
covering the period ca. 940—1187. In that work Ólafr is referred to
for his excellent knowledge of the subject matter. He was introduced
to the Danish King Valdemar Sejr “and acquired from him much know-
ledge and many excellent stories”. From his authentic grammatical
treatise we learn that Ólafr discussed philological problems with King
Valdemar as an equal. Now, Sigurður Nordal finds it “almost absurd”
to imagine that Ólafr Þórðarson should have “committed the compos-
ing of Knýtlinga saga to someone else, as hardly any other Icelander
can have had the same qualifications for writing it”. To modern
readers it may be puzzling that an author should refer to himself in
the third person, as would be the case if Sigurður Nordal were right
about Knýllinga. But, in the same objective way, Ólafr’s brother Sturla
relates his own actions in Islendinga saga.
In this connection it appears as an interesting and provocative fact
that scholars — in the last years particularly the German Laxdœla-
expert Rolf Heller — have noted striking points of contact between
I.axdœla and Knýtlinga as regards vocabulary and phraseology. To
Heller it seems obvious that the author of Laxdœla was acquainted
with Knýtlinga (or rather its predecessor, a supposed Knúts saga helga)
— as he was with many other Kings’ sagas — and had been impressed
by its scenes and diction.
The present inquiry takes as a starting point the indications given
by Einar Ól. Sveinsson and Sigurður Nordal as to the authorship of
Laxdœla and Knýtlinga respectively. If these two works, subjected to
a rigid philological test, and compared with many other saga-texts,
should reveal an extraordinary affinity, such an outcome would strong-
ly support the view that Laxdœla and Knýtlinga had the s a m e author.
And in that case there would scarcely be any other candidate available
for this double authorship than Ólafr Þórðarson hvítaskáld.
The conditions for a philological comparison, however, are not ideal
here. Quite apart from the deplorable fact that no original manu-
scripts of the sagas are left — a serious handicap which hampers all
research work in the field of Old Icelandic literature — Knýtlinga as
such is not well suited for a determination of authorship. As scholars
have demonstrated (the Dane, Gustav Albeck, most exhaustively),
Knýtlinga is strongly influenced by Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla.
Perhaps its vocabulary and style are therefore not very likely to re-