Gripla - 2021, Blaðsíða 263

261
and the saga are independent of each other and that both can be traced to
the lost medieval saga of Hrómundur. This idea was rejected by Andrews
(1911), who considered the saga to be derived from the rímur. Similarly, the
editor of the rímur, Finnur Jónsson (1905–22, 409–10), commenting briefly
on the discrepancies between the saga and the rímur, also concluded that the
saga is based on the rímur (Finnur Jónsson 1907, 333–34; 1923, 2:802–03).
Kölbing’s interpretation was, however, revived by Hooper (1930, x–xi;
1934, 56), who believed that the seventeenth-century saga is based on the lost
saga, with certain interpolations from the rímur. This was in turn rejected by
Brown (1946–53), who provided the most convincing evidence in favour of
Andrews’ interpretation. Today, Brown’s interpretation is widely accepted
in the literature, for example by Jesch (1984; 1993).
Brown, in her study, focused on verbal similarities between the saga
and the rímur, in order to demonstrate that the saga is secondary to the
rímur. The examples of alliteration preserved in the saga that originate
from the rímur are convincing evidence of the relationship, for example:
“Stattu á fætr stúrulaust … skríð þú af stóli, skálkrinn latr, skilinn frá ǫllu
happi” in the rímur corresponds to the saga’s “Stattu stuðnungslaust á
fætur aptr … Skríddu af stóli, skálkr argr, sviptr ǫllu fé” (Brown 1946–53,
73). This example, however, is taken out of context and gives the reader a
false impression of the extent of the similarities. The contents of stanzas
III:24 and III:25, which Brown used as an example of alliteration, are
significantly repositioned in the saga, and there is a large amount of text
between the two, on which Brown chose not to comment (the order of the
stanzas is discussed further in this section). Brown also generally did not
comment on the particular manuscripts preserving the rímur, making her
study satisfactory only to a limited extent. In that sense, Andrews’ analysis
is more detailed, as he takes into account the readings of manuscripts in-
cluded in the variant apparatus of Finnur Jónsson’s edition. Based on three
textual variants, Andrews concluded that the saga is more closely related
to the branch of the Griplur tradition that includes Wolfenbüttel, Herzog
August Bibliothek Cod. Guelf. 42.7. Aug. 4to, and Reykjavík, Stofnun
Árna Magnússonar í íslenskum fræðum AM 146 a 8vo.5 Based on the
5 On manuscripts preserving Griplur, see Kapitan (2020). The very same interpretation of
the relationship between 17HsG and Griplur as that proposed by Andrews was presented
by Björn K. Þórólfsson (1934, 353) in his short discussion of the relationship between the
saga and the rímur, but it is most likely directly borrowed from Andrews.
HRÓ MUNDUR IN PROSE AND VERSE