*Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla : Reconstructing the Lost Original of a Saga from the Sturlunga Compilation
2023; University of Illinois Press; Volume: 95; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5406/21638195.95.4.04
ISSN2163-8195
Autores Tópico(s)Historical and Archaeological Studies
ResumoScholars of pre-modern literature are becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to include the study of lost texts within literary histories (Matthews 2020, 230). The study of lost literary works (literary chamenology) can make use of techniques belonging to the field of textual criticism such as stemmatics but is able to go beyond them in reconstructing the contents, and not necessarily form, when—for example—disentangling remnants of source texts from compilations. This mode of study has long been practiced in Bible Studies, for example, by the proponents of the documentary hypothesis.In this article, I attempt to lay out the contents of the lost original of a component text of the fourteenth-century Sturlunga saga, namely: Þórðar saga kakala (*Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla). The approach taken to reconstructing the content of the lost original of Þórðar saga kakala in this article is an inversion of redaction criticism. It seeks after the contents of the source text, *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla, by taking the contents of Þórðar saga kakala in the extant manuscripts and reversing the compilational and editorial processes in play throughout its transmission history. This critique makes use of the categories of evidence used in textual criticism (external and internal evidence) but is not interested in the production of an edition of the lost original.Nearly all the earliest modern scholars were of the view that Þórðar saga kakala covers more or less the same time line as *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla. Björn M. Ólsen expressed the view that *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla encompassed an account of the years 1242 to 1256, while Pétur Sigurðsson claimed it covered an even shorter period, suggesting the original saga encompassed the period 1242 to 1250 or possibly only 1247 (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, 348; Pétur Sigurðsson 1933–1935, 91, 148, 151).However, their successors Kristian Kålund and Jón Jóhannesson took the opposite view and separately declared the opening of Þórðar saga kakala to be unnatural and unusual, conjecturing that it opened with Þórður's birth and upbringing as well as his sojourn in Norway between 1237 and 1242 (Kålund 1901, 296ff.; Jón Jóhannesson 1946, xli).Úlfar Bragason has noted that most scholars today are in agreement with Kristian Kålund and Jón Jóhannesson that the narrative of *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla reported on a much longer period of history than Þórðar saga kakala (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 101). Be that as it may, it is considered that *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla need not necessarily have been much more lengthy than Þórðar saga kakala in terms of word count.The only researcher in recent times to express a belief that Þórðar saga kakala is essentially representative of the content of the original saga is Einar Már Jónsson, who thinks the narrative had been left unfinished by its author in 1249 (Einar Már Jónsson 2006, 51). I do not give much regard to Einar's resurrection of this traditional view, but it is nevertheless important for us to assess whether or not the now dominant modern view of *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla's content is supported by the evidence.Þórðar saga kakala begins in medias res. Chapter 1 is a prologue of sorts, summarizing events in Iceland following the seizure of two of Þórður's cousins, Órækja Snorrason and Sturla Þórðarson, at Hvítárbrú in the year 1242. The chapter reports that Órækja and Gissur Þorvaldsson traveled abroad and tells how Kolbeinn ungi subjugated the Western Quarter of Iceland to his leadership. Chapter 2 describes Þórður kakali's arrival back in Iceland in September 1242. Chapters 2–5 provide an account of Þórður's attempt to gather support for his case against Kolbeinn and Gissur for the deaths of his father and brothers at Örlygsstaðir in 1238.Chapters 6–7 explain the course of events when, after gathering an army, Þórður immediately invades the Southern Quarter. This campaign comes off as a success in chapter 7, and chapters 8–10 describe the escape of Þórður and his men from Kolbeinn, who has been made aware of the incursion by Hjalti biskupsson, the interim leader of Árnesþing.Chapters 11–22 tell of a series of escalating skirmishes between Þórður's and Kolbeinn's sides, and the raising of navies by each. Following a devastating attack on Vatnsdalur by Þórður, Kolbeinn avenges himself by pillaging Dalir and the region around Reykhólar, before hunting down Þórður's brother, Tumi yngri, and killing him, in chapters 23–26. This outrage, and the harsh measures imposed on the Eyfirðingar, set the stage for chapters 27–35, which describe the course of the naval engagement called the Battle of Húnaflói and the amphibious maneuvers that followed.Although the Battle of Húnaflói proves indecisive, a partial resolution between the two sides is reached in chapters 36–38 by Kolbeinn returning Þórður's patrimony to him and dying shortly after. Þórður establishes himself as the leader of Eyjafjörður while Brandur Kolbeinsson takes the helm in Skagafjörður. Chapters 39–41 describe escalating tensions between Þórður and Brandur, culminating in a second confrontation at the Battle of Haugsnes in chapters 42–4.Having summarily executed Brandur following a catastrophic defeat of the Skagfirðingar, Þórður and Gissur agree to resolve their own dispute through the mediation of the Norwegian king in chapter 45. The two travel to Norway and submit their case to the Norwegian king's judgment in chapter 46. Chapter 47 tells what happened next in Iceland and dates the death of Brandur. Returning to Norway in chapter 48, it is stated that Cardinal William of Sabina decided the dispute in Þórður's favor, and that he was to be sent by the Norwegian king to promote the royal cause with the assistance of the new bishop elect of Hólar, Henrik.Chapter 49 summarizes Þórður's time in Iceland during the period 1247–1250. Most of the narrative is taken up with the matter of how he established leadership over the whole country, and notes some key events during his ascendancy. Þórður and Bishop Henrik, however, fall out, for the latter believes the former to have labored more on his own behalf than the king's. The consequence is that Bishop Henrik goes to Norway and makes the case against Þórður before King Håkon in 1249. Chapter 49 ends abruptly in the Winter of 1249–1250 by telling how few support Þórður's case in Norway.Chapter 50—the last—picks up the story 4 years after the end of chapter 49, with Gissur's arrival in Norway in 1254 after the Flugumýri Arson on October 22, 1253. After a confrontation with Þórður at the court, we hear about Þórður's activity in Norway as a sheriff, his popularity, and then an account of his death.Þórðar saga kakala is preserved in Sturlunga saga, a compilation of texts mostly centered on the feuds of the Icelandic political élite during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.The Sturlunga saga canon comprises the following texts: Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Þorgils saga og Hafliða, Ættartölur, Sturlu saga, Íslendinga saga, Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar, Guðmundar saga dýra, Haukdæla þáttur, Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar, Þórðar saga kakala, Þorgils saga skarða, Svínfellinga saga, and Sturlu þáttur. It is worth noting that Sturlunga saga is not composed of a selection of self-contained narratives. This is because many of its component texts have been interlaced to place events in a mostly chronological order, thus forming a single narrative.Sturlunga saga is extant in forty-nine manuscripts, only two of which are medieval vellums. Given Þórðar saga kakala's inclusion in the two medieval manuscripts, it is overwhelmingly likely that it was introduced during the compilation of the original Sturlunga saga (*Sturlunga saga).The identity of the compiler of *Sturlunga saga is obscure, although it is widely held to have been either Þórður Narfason or Þorsteinn Snorrason who compiled it at some point during the early- to mid-fourteenth century (Helgi Þorláksson 2012, 79). Þórður Narfason (d. 1308), one of the Skarðverjar, was lawman twice: the first time before and the second at the turn of the fourteenth century. Importantly, it is known that Þórður studied law at the lawman Sturla Þórðarson's knee during the Winter of 1271–1272 (Sigurður Sigurmundsson 1963, 33). Þorsteinn böllóttur Snorrason (d. 1351), one of the Melamenn, was abbot of Helgafell from 1344 (though consecrated in 1345) until his death (Helgi Þorláksson 2012, 56).In addition to Þórðar saga kakala, *Sturlunga saga is thought to have included the following texts: Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Þorgils saga og Hafliða, Ættartölur, Sturlu saga, Íslendinga saga, Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar, Guðmundar saga dýra, Haukdæla þáttur, Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar, and Svínfellinga saga. Guðrún Nordal highlights that Þorgils saga skarða and Sturlu þáttur were introduced into Sturlunga saga during the late fourteenth century and that these two texts were not part of *Sturlunga saga (Guðrún Nordal 2006, 308, 311). Guðni Jónsson notes that it is believed that Þórður Hítnesingur was the author of Þorgils saga skarða and Sturlu þáttur, and that he wrote during the period 1275–1280 (Guðni Jónsson 1954, 1: xi).Íslendinga saga is the largest component text of Sturlunga saga, and it is certain that a version of it formed the larger part of *Sturlunga saga. This is because its text constitutes a substantial portion of all extant versions of Sturlunga saga: no doubt this is why the traditional name for the compilation is Íslendinga saga hin mikla. For example, it is used as the title for the seventeenth-century manuscript of Sturlunga saga AM 116 fol. Occasionally, the title used was simply Íslendinga saga (e.g., AM 115 fol., 1r.).Íslendinga saga describes political events in Iceland during the 80-year period from the death of Hvamm-Sturla Þórðarson in the early 1180s until the end of the Commonwealth period in the early 1260s. The original (*Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka) was composed by Sturla Þórðarson (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, 8). As it is known that Sturla died in 1284, we have a clear terminus ante quem for *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka (Jón Viðar Sigurðsson and Sverrir Jakobsson 2017, 6). There has been debate over how much of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka Sturla wrote before his demise. Björn M. Ólsen and Pétur Sigurðsson both believed that *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka did not go beyond 1255 (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, 385ff.; Pétur Sigurðsson 1933–1935, 10ff.). Björn thought the post-1255 material in Sturlunga saga, which editors have long classified as part of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka had originally belonged to a lost *Gissurar saga og Skagfirðinga. Pétur believed that *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka was finished off by the compiler after Sturla's death, due to the patchy quality that characterizes the narrative of Íslendinga saga from the mid-1250s onward. Jón Jóhannesson disagreed with Björn and Pétur, arguing that Sturla did write all of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka and, moreover, that it reflects in its surviving form (i.e., Íslendinga saga) the fact that Sturla deliberately left gaps, due to an assumption on his part that readers might find accounts of this history already written in other sagas (Jón Jóhannesson 1946, xxxiv–xli); however, this is unlikely to be correct, for we know that Íslendinga saga is not identical to *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka. More recently, R. George Thomas has upheld Pétur's view that Sturla did not live to write *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka beyond 1255 and that it was finished off by Þórður Narfason after Sturla's death to the best of his ability (Thomas 1970, 23). Regardless of whether or not Þórður was the person responsible for compiling *Sturlunga saga, I think it likely—given his pupillage under Sturla—that he would have been the one who attempted to finalize *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka if his teacher truly died before completion. Perhaps Þórður was the one who endeavored to finish *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka by piecing together notes left behind by his former teacher and appending them to what Sturla had already drafted, while Þorsteinn Snorrason was the compiler of *Sturlunga saga?The other texts in Sturlunga saga are inserted at the front and posterior of Íslendinga saga or have been woven into it; they also interlace with each other at times. Wherever content in *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla or other independent versions of sagas in the Sturlunga saga canon was mirrored somewhere in *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka, it was almost always redacted from one or the other by the compiler during the creation of *Sturlunga saga, leaving a single component text to provide the information (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 188). The same applied when any of the texts that were compiled into *Sturlunga saga contained the same content as each other in independent form. Nonetheless, the compiler did not do this in every case.There are many possible explanations for why the compiler kept two or more accounts of certain events, the most probable being hasty composition; oversight due to human error because of the scale of the compilation; an aspiration to include as detailed accounts as possible; an awareness by the compiler of the proper due diligence required of him within medieval Icelandic historiographical practice to note contradictory reports, so that his audience might know, and decide between, alternative perspectives on what happened; or a desire to preserve narrative flow or other stylistic qualities that may have been destroyed by editing that was too heavy-handed.Beyond redacting duplicate content, the compiler further edited the texts he included in *Sturlunga saga. Among the texts in *Sturlunga saga, only Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar has survived to the present day in two complete recensions independent of the Sturlunga saga manuscript tradition, one of which is an abridgment, but which are both known to scholars by the title Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka. Comparison of Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar with Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka is valuable for working out the working method of the compiler of *Sturlunga saga (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 193). Additionally, there are several Guðmundar sögur—hagiographic accounts of Bishop Guðmundur Arason's life—apart from the Sturlunga saga canon's Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar in existence (Stefán Karlsson 1983; Skórzewska 2011). Guðmundar sögur evidently derive most of their content from some recension of Sturlunga saga (as well as other extant and lost texts), although it is not altogether clear whether or not the extra materials they contain come from an independent version of Prestssaga Guðmundar góða Arasonar or elsewhere (Sigurdson 2016, 40). Interestingly, Guðmundar saga A may be more representative of *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka than Íslendinga saga, giving further insights into the compiler's working method (Zimmerling 2005, 560–1). Still further, Þorgils saga skarða is preserved in an independent fragment (NRA 56, of which only two leaves survive, dated to c. 1300), but that saga was not part of *Sturlunga saga (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, 193). The comparison of the surviving leaves of NRA 56 with the version of Þorgils saga skarða in the Sturlunga saga manuscript tradition does, however, underscore the method of the editor of Reykjafjarðarbók, who first introduced it into the compilation.Returning to Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar and Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka: comparisons between the independent and compiled versions of the saga carried out by Úlfar Bragason, Guðrún Nordal, Ásdís Egilsdóttir, and Torfi H. Tulinius have found the former far less religious in character than the latter (Úlfar Bragason 1988; Guðrún Nordal 2000, 221ff.; Ásdís Egilsdóttir 2004; Torfi H. Tulinius 2016, 94). Margaret Cormack has also noted the compiler's decision to incorporate a version of the saga of Bishop Guðmundur sans the miracles in its independent versions, but neither of the sagas of the other saintly bishops of Iceland Þorlákur and Jón may indicate that a distinction was being made “between the religious and the historical” in selecting content for inclusion (Cormack 2005, 27).These scholars appear to have hit on a valid conclusion given the secularity (and brevity) of Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar when compared with Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar hin sérstaka:Nonetheless, it is important to note that secularization was not the aim of the compiler, but a consequence of the compiler's process, which was extracting feud narratives from those of his chosen texts that contained them for inclusion in the compilation (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 186). In selecting which component text to provide an account of feud where it existed in more than one, the compiler appears to have chosen the one that had provided the most detailed report of events in independent form. For example, the compiler did not include *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka's account of Þórður kakali's career in Iceland during the years 1242–1250, choosing instead to incorporate *Þórðar saga kakala hin mikla's narrative, which likely provided more detail than the former.Úlfar Bragason emphasizes that the feuds the compiler was interested in were between Icelanders, and that he therefore substantially abridged or redacted content discussing foreign travel except when it was explicitly relevant to his focus on Icelandic disputes, though it may nevertheless have also been shortened (Úlfar Bragason 2010, 186). Whilst Helgi Þorláksson has recently put forward a different view on the purpose of *Sturlunga saga whilst proposing Þorsteinn Snorrason as its compiler, most scholars have concluded that the collection of feud narratives was intended by the compiler of *Sturlunga saga to illustrate the social disorder caused by feud and to explore methods for re-establishing peace and order (Tranter 1987, 218–21; Guðrún Nordal 2000, 226; Ármann Jakobsson 2003, 337ff.; Úlfar Bragason 2010, 266ff.). It is worth noting, however, that this “consensus” view of the purpose of *Sturlunga saga does not necessarily require Þórður Narfason to have been the compiler.If we accept that *Sturlunga saga's compiler was primarily using feud narratives to explore themes of social disorder and peace strategies, then we need to account for why the compilation included texts that lack feud narratives (i.e., Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns, Ættartölur, Haukdæla þáttur, and Prestssaga Guðmundar Arasonar). The explanation is simple and rather mundane: when putting together *Sturlunga saga, the compiler also incorporated and wrote additional texts without feud narratives in them to provide both background information for the accounts of conflict in *Sturlunga saga. Additionally, it is conceivable that these texts helped reinforce his moral and ideological message; for example, the opening scenes of Geirmundar þáttur heljarskinns heavily suggest a hereditary determinist outlook, which concords with the monarchic solution to endemic conflict (i.e., the king's peace).Two copies of *Sturlunga saga from the fourteenth century are extant. The vellums are known as Króksfjarðarbók (AM 122 a fol.) and Reykjarfjarðarbók (AM 122 b fol.), or simply I and II. Króksfjarðarbók was written during the 1350s or 1360s in western Iceland (Úlfar Bragason 1986, 11). Stefán Karlsson has stated that the hand that wrote AM 399 4to (Guðmundar saga hin elzta; dated to 1330–1350) is the same one that wrote AM 122 a fol. (Stefán Karlsson 1983, xli). Króksfjarðarbók originally comprised 141 leaves, but we only have 110 of these (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, 16). Consequently, there are several large lacunae in Króksfjarðarbók. Luckily, there are many surviving paper copies descended from Króksfjarðarbók, collectively known as the Ip class, which allow us to fill the lacunae with a degree of certainty. The earliest of the Ip manuscripts is AM 114 fol., written c. 1630 by Jón Gissurarson (Úlfar Bragason 1986, 12). AM 114 fol. is the archetype for the rest of that class, though it is worth noting that AM 114 fol. is a bad copy (Viljoen 1995, xxxiii).Reykjarfjarðarbók was written c. 1375 at Akrar in Skagafjörður and originally comprised 180 or more leaves (Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir 2017, 16). Reykjarfjarðarbók barely made it through to the present day; indeed, most of it did not: Már Jónsson tells how it “was torn to pieces in 1676–1679 as it was damaged by moisture. The owner, a well-to-do farmer, gave leaves to his friends for use as book covers” (Már Jónsson 2010, 307). Because of this, only thirty badly damaged leaves of Reykjarfjarðarbók survive today, due to Árni Magnússon's diligent collection of them at the beginning of the eighteenth century.Several paper copies descended from Reykjarfjarðarbók were made during the seventeenth century and later, known as the IIp class of manuscripts. In c. 1635, Björn of Skarðsá made a copy of Reykjarfjarðarbók, the now lost *Skarðsárbók, which was the archetype of the IIp recensions of Sturlunga saga (not to be confused with Skarðsárbók, also written by Björn, which is a version of Landnámabók). Björn drew mostly on Reykjarfjarðarbók, but also interpolated from Króksfjarðarbók, noting what material came from which manuscript (Guðrún P. Helgadóttir 1993, 58; Viljoen 1995, xxxiv). Björn also wrote a summary of *Skarðsárbók in c. 1646 that still exists today and is called AM 439 4to (Guðrún P. Helgadóttir 1993, 60). A handful of manuscripts descended from *Skarðsárbók are now extant, two of which are considered to be of particular importance. The first is Holm. Papp. 8 4to, composed by Halldór Guðmundsson in Eyjafjörður in c. 1650, which is highly likely to be a copy of *Skarðsárbók (Guðrún P. Helgadóttir 1993, 59). The second is BL Add. 11,1277 (British Library Additional Manuscript Number 11,127 is the shelf-mark of the Sturlunga saga manuscript held at the British Library in London), put together at Oddi in c. 1696, which is a direct copy of *Skarðsárbók (Viljoen 1995, xxxiv). The IIp manuscripts give a fair idea of what Reykjarfjarðarbók was like in its complete form.There are a few considerable differences between I/Ip and II/IIp recensions of Sturlunga saga. It is worth briefly noting and challenging Ólafia Einarsdóttir's view, based on evidence from four of the five earliest Icelandic annals (Resensannáll, Høyersannáll, Skálholtsannáll, and Konungsannáll), that these variations were the consequence of the editors of Króksfjarðarbók and Reykjarfjarðarbók each copying selectively from *Sturlunga saga (Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1968, 62–3). A major issue with Ólafía's conjecture is her assumption that *Sturlunga saga's terminus post quem of c. 1300 is representative of its actual date of writing, and, therefore, that the compilation precedes the production of the earliest Icelandic annals (Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1968, 47). It is important to note, though, that *Sturlunga saga probably does precede Skálholtsannáll, which is the fifth earliest Icelandic annal.Recent research has undermined the older consensus about who compiled *Sturlunga saga, indicating that the text could have been written at almost any point during the first half of the fourteenth century (Helgi Þorláksson 2012). Multiple candidates for compiler have been known about since at least the nineteenth century (cf. Guðbrandur Vigfússon 1878, ciii–cv), but for the most part, Þórður Narfason had been considered likeliest to have been compiler—up until recently.Another issue is the fact that even if some of the early annalists did rely upon *Sturlunga saga as a source, there is no evidence to suggest that their content was solely derived from that text. Indeed, the notion of one source here seems improbable. Thus, there is no good reason to suppose that the sources for Króksfjarðarbók and Reykjarfjarðarbók (other than *Sturlunga saga) would not also have been available to the annalists.Even though Króksfjarðarbók contains interpolations, these are few and minor; consequently, it is probably near to what *Sturlunga saga must have been like. Reykjarfjarðarbók, for its part, is thought to have been more representative of the pre-compilation texts of the Sturlunga saga canon than Króksfjarðarbók (Björn M. Ólsen 1902, 196). This view can be substantiated through two arguments that indicate that the editor of Reykjarfjarðarbók consulted independent versions of the texts in *Sturlunga saga while producing his or her manuscript of Sturlunga saga.The first is Björn M. Ólsen's argument that because Reykjarfjarðarbók was far more religious in character than Króksfjarðarbók (and more detailed in most places—my own observation, which is supported by Guðrún Nordal 2010, 182–3, 186–7), it must be a better indication of what the individual texts of Sturlunga saga were like before they were first compiled into *Sturlunga saga, given what we discussed earlier about the compiler's working method. Nonetheless, it is important to temper this with an awareness that, apart from providing a basis on which to adjudge nearness to *Sturlunga saga or pre-compilation texts, some of the differences between Króksfjarðarbók and Reykjarfjarðarbók can also be interpreted as products of each manuscript's origins. Guðrún Nordal is particularly strong on the importance of understanding the divergences between the two Sturlunga saga vellums in their respective spatiotemporal contexts, as social, political, and/or economic factors would have demanded that certain material be included or excluded (Guðrún Nordal 2006, 311–2). It could be argued, for instance, that aspects of Reykjarfjarðarbók's heightened religiosity (compared with Króksfjarðarbók) could be explained by the Icelandic Church's pressure or influence on the editor. After all, the strongholds of the Northern Icelandic Benedictine School (at Þingeyrar and Munka-Þverá) were not far away from Akrar.The second argument that can be made in favor of the editor of Reykjarfjarðarbók having consulted independent versions of the texts in *Sturlunga saga while producing his or her manuscript of Sturlunga saga is based on the identity of Reykjarfjarðarbók's editor. Palaeographic evidence strongly suggests that Reykjarfjarðarbók was produced by Björn Brynjólfsson (and/or possibly his brother Benedikt) at Akrar, which is thought to have housed a scriptorium (Stefán Karlsson 2000, 310). Björn is known to have written up to eleven of the medieval Icelandic manuscripts that have survived down to the present day (Guðvarður Már Gunnlaugsson 2005, 253). We may surmise that other texts known to have been written by Björn might give an indication of the editorial approach taken to Reykjarfjarðarbók. As an example, let us consider Björn's manuscript AM 62 fol., a manuscript of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar hin mesta, which in all its recensions is the most extensive of the sagas centered on the life and deeds of King Olav Tryggvason of Norway (hence, its name “the greatest saga”). Elizabeth Ashman-Rowe notes that in making AM 62 fol., Björn enhanced an early recension of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar by supplementing it with material from Færeyinga saga, Hallfreðar saga, Jómsvíkinga saga, and Landnámabók, in addition to completely incorporating versions of Helga þáttur Þórissonar and Norna-Gests þáttur and expanding the conversion narrative with lost Latin material written by the monk Gunnlaugur Leifsson about Olav Tryggvason's attempts to spread Christianity (Ashman-Rowe 2005, 158). Therefore, Björn is known to have supplemented the saga books that he edited using numerous other texts on at least one prior occasion. The question now is whether or not Björn also did this when he edited Reykjarfjarðarbók.We know from IIp that in complete form, Reykjarfjarðarbók's account was almost always more detailed than Króksfjarðarbók's (for a useful handlist, cf. Guðrún Nordal 2006, 307–8). For instance, notwithstanding that there is additional content in Króksfjarðarbók's recension of Þórðar saga kakala, which was not present in Reykjarfjarðarbók (e.g., some of the content about the incursion into Dalir around the time of Tumi's execution), let us consider that “Tumi's execution [chapter 24 of Þórðar saga kakala] is described in more detail in” Reykjarfjarðarbók than it is in Króksfjarðarbók (Guðrún Nordal 2006, 307). We ought to be mindful of Ólafia Einarsdóttir's proposal that Þórðar saga kakala was shorter in Reykjarfjarðarbók than in Króksfjarðarbók, based on her interpretation of a marginal annotation in BL Add MS 11,127, which she suggests implies that chapters 47–49 were not present in the former of the two vellums (Ólafia Einarsdóttir 1968; 1995, 51; Kålund 1911, 101n1). My own view is that the wording in BL Add MS 11,127—“önnur saga jók þessu” [another saga added to this]—refers only to chapter 47, given that this chapter is absent from AM 439 4to, whereas 48 and 49 are not. It is not clear whether chapter 47 was a portion of *Sturlunga saga that Björn decided not to copy into Reykjarfjarðarbók for some reason, or if it was an addition by the editor of Króksfjarðarbók.Another example to show Björn's supplementary editorial approach is the case of chapters a–e (designated such by Kålund 1906–1911, 116–9) of Svínfellinga saga in Reykjarfjarðarbók (as preserved by IIp). Chapters a–e are not present in Króksfjarðarbók. There has been much debate regarding the origins of chapters a–e. Pétur Sigurðsson asserts that chapters a, b, d, and e were taken directly by the editor of Reykjarfjarðarbók from *Íslendinga saga hin sérstaka, while c was the editor's own creation using Þorgils saga skarða (Pétur Sigurðsson 1933–1935, 94–9). Finding Pétur's view compelling with respect to the origins of chapters a–e, Grégory Cattaneo goes on to explain his view that the editor of Reykjarfjarðarbók must have thought these additions would serve to better integrate the remote easterners into their recension of Sturlunga saga, which has
Referência(s)