SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

Book Reviews 259
Axel Olrik formulated the theory that there had existed two
versions of Skjoldunga saga, an older, more elaborate text and
a younger, simpler one that must have been used by Arngrimur
and the author of the vellum fragment Sogubrot affornkonungum .
J akob Benediktsson opposed this view and asserted that"there
are no valid reasons for assuming that more than one redaction of
the saga ever existed" (Saga-Book XV 51). It is Bjarni
Guonason's thesis that Dr Jakob's view cannot be accepted
without qualification and he makes the tentative suggestion that
there were, in fact, two redactions of Skjoldunga saga but that the
younger one was the more elaborate and that Stigubrot testifies to
the existence of this younger redaction. This suggestion rests,
however, on a very weak foundation since, as Bjarni himself says,
it is impossible to point to any other text derived from Skjoldunga
saga which seems to depend on the younger recension, with the
possible exception of Upphaf. Jakob's view that there was only
one redaction would still seem to be the more acceptable.
There is another significant point on which Bjarni differs from
Jakob. This is his assessment of the nature of Arngrim's latin
version. Jakob writes in Saga-Book XV 50, "AJ did not translate
the saga, he only made an abstract of it, and, as we can see from
comparison with other sources, this abstract is in some places
very much abridged". Bjarni discusses Arngrim's normal
practice in the treatment of his sources and compares his version
of Skjoldunga saga with that preserved in the other sources and
comes to the conclusion that, apart from the omission of a few
episodes and some names, he rendered his source very closely in
the section extending from 6l'5inn to Hr6lfr kraki. Bjarni's
arguments are convincing although, as he himself admits, it is
possible that more material found in the original saga was omitted
by Arngrfrnur than the few fragments which comparison with
other sources would seem to prove that he omitted.
Bjarni agrees with Jakob's view that SkjQldunga saga must have
told of the Danish kings from Skjoldr, son of (Jl'5inn, to Gorm the
Old, and he makes a comparison in some detail between the Latin
text and parallel texts in the more reliable of the Icelandic sources.
The less reliable sources such as Bjarkarimur and Sogubrot are
also discussed. These painstaking comparisons produce much
interesting evidence.
Until the appearance of this book there had been general
agreement among scholars that the original Skjoldunga saga must
have been composed about 1200 or perhaps a little later. Bjarni's
assessment of Sogubrot as a relic of a younger recension removes
the necessity of assigning the saga to a date as late as this to