An edition of Flóamanna saga with a study of its sources and analogues

This thesis is an edition of Flóamanna Saga based on a selected number of its many manuscripts. The Introduction consists of three chapters: Chapter I deals with the textual history of the saga. First, the 67 extant manuscripts known to the present editor are listed. Special attention is then given to those used for this edition, which are as follows: AM 445 b, 4to (M); AM 516, 4to (K); AM 517, 4to (A); Cod. Holm. Isl. papp. fol. No. 60 (S); IB 45, 4to (B); AM 165 m, fol. (J); AM 515, 4to (P). While this last manuscript is being discussed, the fact that part of it is a(n) (inferior) copy of lost leaves of AM 445 b, 4to is stressed and an attempt to assess its value in this respect is made. The relationship between the texts of the seven selected manuscripts is then investigated. It is first demonstrated that while M and parts of P represent a longer redaction of the saga (M-version), the other manuscripts (and the remaining parts of P) (called the X-group) represent a shorter one (X-version). The manuscripts which represent the X-version are then discussed. It is argued that K, A and S (Y-group) represent a far better text of the saga than B J and the majority of P (Z-group). Further, it is shown that, contrary to the belief of various previous editors, the latest common source for J, A and most the variants added by Arni Magnússon in K (called AM) is a different and older manuscript (called *Y) than the latest common source for A and M (called *y). The scribe of *y is, on the basis of Stefán Karlsson's investigations, identified as Magnús Pórhallsson and the manuscript itself is identified as one of those given by Peder Resen to the University of Copenhagen at the end of the seventeenth century. The relationship between the longer (M-) and the shorter (X-) versions of the saga is then given detailed attention: it is suggested that, wherever the two texts diverge, it is, in the majority of cases, the M-version which agrees most closely with the saga as it was in its original form. Two older theories on the nature of the original text of the saga, that put forward by Dr. P. Nijhoff and that in Origines Islandicae, are discussed and dismissed. Previous editions and translations of Flóamanna Saga are enumerated and the method by which the text of the present edition is arrived at is explained.
Chapter II is divided into two sections. The first deals with the relationship between Flóamanna Saga and Landnámabók. An attempt is made to show that Flóamanna Saga and the Hauksbók-redaction of Landnámabók have as their latest common source a manuscript of the Sturlubók-redaction which was not identical with Sturla Pórðarson's original. The text of chapters 1-10 and 18 of Flóamanna Saga is compared with the parts of Landnámabók from which it borrows and various observations made on the way the author of the saga has adapted this particular source and on the borrowed elements he has worked into the framework it provides. It is also shown how borrowings from Landnámabók are probably to be found in chapters of Flóamanna Saga other than chapters 1-10 and 18. Some older theories on the relationship between the saga and Landnámabók are reviewed. The second section of Chapter II is devoted to borrowed and stereotyped elements in the body of the saga and a large number of sources and parallels (a number of which have gone unnoticed by previous investigators) are pointed to. Egils Saga is mentioned as the source for a number of borrowings from hagiographic sources are mentioned, or sources which themselves show strong hagiographic influences. The Section is prefaced by various terminological and methodological considerations.
Chapter III falls into three sections. In the first of these it is argued that the historical elements in Flóamanna Saga is minimal and that it draws on oral traditions to no appreciable extent. The second section considers the artistry of the saga and its place in Old Icelandic literature; an attempt is made to account for the curious blend of religious and profane elements to be found in the saga. In Section C, it is firstly argued that Flóamanna Saga was written in Flói by a cleric, almost certainly between 1290 and 1385 and less certainly between 1290 and 1330. Finally, the more specific suggestion is made that the saga was written at Gaulverjabær in Flói for Haukr Erlendsson (died 1334), or was merely written for Haukr Erlendsson.
The Main Text of the saga is given on pages 1-61. This is an attempt to reconstruct the text of *Y (see above), a text which closely resembled the latest common source for the X-group. The Main Text is followed by the part of P which is mainly a copy of lost parts of M (pages 63-75). Finally the preserved fragments of M are to be found on pages 77-85 and 87-9. All the texts are given in normalized form. They are followed by the Textual Notes, which, in the case of the Main Text, give selected variants from other manuscripts.
After the Textual Notes comes the Commentary on the text ('Notes'), which is intended to be as comprehensive as possible. Points of particular interest or importance are discussed in the following Notes: 1/6; 12/4-6; 13/19; 13/22-3; 26/23-5, 27/3-4; 32/4-5; 40/6; 40/15-8; 47/6; 61/6-9; 61/8-9; 64/12-3; 70/5; 79/16-7; 79/18-9.
The thesis is concluded with three Appendices. In the first of these, a section of P is edited which has relevance to the question of the point at which the scribe of that manuscript started copying lost parts of *M (see pages *38 ff.). In Appendix II, the rune-inscribed oar mentioned in the M-version at 77/20-78/3 fully discussed: it is argued that the verse itself is a rowing chant. Finally, in Appendix III, on the basis of a reading in Fló, an emendation to Hárbarðsljóð, verse 60 is suggested.