Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Blaðsíða 189
(regular or inverted), the use of the present or preterite for narrative
tense, the frequency of occurrence of pvi næst, and the use of the verb
kveda to introduce direct discourse, Peter Hallberg distinguished be-
tween a Norwegian group of translations - a Tristram-group, to which the
sagas listed above belong - and a group of later Icelandic riddarasogur, to
which Erex saga belongs.47 Hallberg admits that one or the other transla-
ted saga in the control-group could originally have belonged to the Tris-
tram-group, “men i så fali har dessa sagor utsatts for sårskilt kraftiga
avskrivaringrepp” (p. 135). Following the example of Hallberg, Paul
Schach conducted further lexical analyses of the group and arrived at
findings that not only corroborated but also strengthened Hallberg’s the-
sis.48 The great similarities in the sagas under consideration - in the
choice of lexical items, the use of the present participle, and especially of
certain rhetorical devices - suggest, according to Schach, that we are
dealing not only with a group of translations that owe their existence to a
school of translators at King Håkon Håkonarson’s court, but that these
translations are to be attributed to one and the same author. Especially
the antithetic use of alliterative collocations Schach considers “the work
and the style of one person” (p. 132), that is to say, Brother Robert. Thus
Schach takes the same position with regard to authorship as Gisli Brynj-
ulfsson had taken a century ago in the 1878 edition of Tristrams saga and
Mottuls saga.49
Hallberg’s work has aroused criticism of his methodology and doubts
regarding his conclusions.50 Nonetheless, it is sufficiently clear - especial-
47 “Norrona riddarsagor. Några språkdrag,” ANF, 86 (1971), pp. 114-38; see especially
p. 134.
48 “The Translations of Brother Robert,” p. 132.
49 Saga af Tristram ok Isond samt Mottuls saga (Copenhagen: Det kongelige nordiske
Oldskrift-Selskab, 1878), p. 415. Tveitane objects to the ascription of Strengleikar to Broth-
er Robert. In the facsimile edition of Elis saga, Strengleikar and Other Texts, he declares:
“Certainly when scholars like Keyser and Unger and more recently Finnur Jonsson have
been prepared to consider Robert as also the translator of Strengleikar, they are moving
entirely in the realm of conjecture” (p. 32).
50 The validity of Hallberg’s conclusions can be questioned since his calculations are
based entirely on normalized nineteenth-century editions that do not always adequately
reflect the language and style of the primary manuscripts that should be considered. For
reaction to Hallberg’s analyses, see especially: Foster W. Blaisdell, “The So-Called ‘Tris-
tram Group’ of the riddarasogur," SS, 46 (1974), pp. 134-39, and Hallberg’s response to the
same, “Is There a ‘Tristram-Group’ of the riddarasogur?” SS, 47 (1975), pp. 1-17; also,
comments made by various scholars at the Liége Conference, Les relations littéraires franco-
scandinaves ..., pp. 133-35.
175