Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.12.1957, Side 307

305
faet that manuscript M is older than manuscript K. Certain passages
which are only found in texts of type M have stylistic features which are
unusual in the Icelanders’ sagas. This has been taken as evidence that the
passages in question are secondary interpolations. The same conclusion has
been drawn regarding a number of stanzas only found in texts of type M.
Andreas Heusler was the chief advocate of the view that the two forms
are transcriptions of oral variants, while Bjorn Magnusson Olsen, Finnur
Jonsson and others reckoned with a common literary original.
FIRST MAIN SECTION. TEXT-CRITICAL COMPARISON IN
DETAIL OF THE TEXTS IN M ( + JS) AND K
The author tries to determine as far as possible which of the texts of
each passage is the more original form; and he comes to the conclusion
that type M is usually more original and better. Some of the features which
afford particularly clear proof of this are mentioned below.
Type M often proves to be more logical and consistent than type K.
Examples:
In the first part of the saga (the 1956 ed., pp. 3-5) there is an account
of the way in which the property of the hero Oddr Ofeigsson inereased.
Its accretion can be set out schematically as follows: Borrowed Capital—
own Capital—share in ferry-boat—whole ferry-boat—share in ship—whole
ship—two ships. Type K has the same stages, except that “share in ship”
is replaced by skreiS (cod), which breaks the line of development. (Cf.
pp. 25 and 143).
In one place (Ib. p. 26) Oddr’s friend Våli is killed by the villain of
the saga, Ospakr, against whom Oddr has brought an action for stealing
sheep. In M, Våli, before he expires, asks Ospakr to send his wife Svala to
Oddr with the message that Ospakr has confessed to the theft, that Våli
has reached an agreement with him, and that Oddr ought to drop the case
against Ospakr. Ospakr gets Svala to tell about the agreement, but without
confessing to the theft. Oddr believes what he is told, and Ospakr gains
time to escape and thus save his life. In K, Våli does not mention that the
theft should be acknowledged. Nevertheless, Svala tells Oddr that Ospakr
has confessed. Moreover Ospakr does not mean to come to terms, and runs
away. There would therefore be no reason for him to confess. (Cf. pp.
44-45).
In one place (Ib. pp. 51-54) we are told that Ofeigr SkiSason asked
Gellir for his daughter in marriage, on behalf of Oddr, his son. In M we
have a long preliminary discussion, as is usual in our saga when Ofeigr is
persuading someone. But the matter is not decided until Ofeigr offers a
large sum of money. In K Ofeigr plays his trump card, the money, first;
then follows that argument which should have been the psychological pre-
paration for this (Cf. p. 81).
20 Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana, XVIII