Those interested in Old Norse-Icelandic literature have at their disposal a plethora
of printed editions, translations in various languages, as well as adaptations in
literature and other art forms. While the basis for translations and related works
are generally printed editions, these editions, in turn, rely on manuscripts, written
on both parchment and paper, ranging in date from the thirteenth century to the nineteenth.
The texts in these Icelandic manuscripts have been passed down for centuries; the
same story sometimes being told in two significantly differing ways. None of the texts
represents the archetype, and each manuscript, presumably even the oldest extant fragment,
is nothing more than a copy (of a copy of a copy). Editors of the sagas are thus faced
with the task of deciding how to deal with their textual sources. The type of edition—scholarly
or popular, hard copy or digital—is generally dependent on the intended readership.
Moreover, editors and publishers can often be driven by philosophical and political
views. Thus two parties, despite sharing certain goals, can disagree greatly on the
best approach.
Using Konráð Gíslason’s 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga, this article looks behind the curtain of nineteenth-century text editions and editorial
practices, which generally—but not always—began with the medieval codices, and often
produced manuscripts in their own right before the final product landed in the hands
of printers, publishers, and eventually readers. The article follows Konráð Gíslason’s
process from studying the medieval codex, transcribing the text, collaborating with
other scholars, all the way to completing, or in this case not quite completing, the
desired finished product. At the same time, the scholarly, philosophical, and political
environments driving publication efforts in nineteenth-century Scandinavia forward
are taken into account as well, illustrating how Konráð’s edition was a reaction to
the editio princeps of Fóstbræðra saga. Lastly, the article goes on to demonstrate that just as every extant manuscript
is in a sense a reaction to a handwritten (and sometimes printed) predecessor, so
can virtually all editions be understood as reactions to a previously published work,
which for one reason or another was deemed insufficient.
Interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature rose in Scandinavia during the seventeenth
century. Denmark’s and Sweden’s desire to establish their respective nation’s supremacy
over the other brought the Icelandic manuscripts into the spotlight, leading to a
race on both sides to collect the codices (see e.g. Malm 101). The Romantic era in
the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries meant a new wave
of interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature and culture, not only in Scandinavia
but also in Germany, Britain, North America, Normandy, and even parts of Russia and
Spain (Wawn 328–33). Simultaneously, Icelanders used their literary legacy to revive
national consciousness
in Iceland and promote their efforts for more independence from Denmark.
The so-called Fjölnismenn [men of Fjölnir], four Denmark-educated Icelanders who established the journal Fjölnir (named after a legendary king from Norse mythology and one of the names for Óðinn;
published between 1835 to 1847), were on the forefront of Iceland’s independence movement
(see e.g. Wawn 332). One of these Fjölnismenn was Konráð Gíslason (1808-1891), who
was educated at the Lærði skólinn [Learned School] at Bessastaðir in Iceland before
studying law and, later, Nordic and Icelandic philology
in Copenhagen. In 1846, he published Um frum-parta íslenzkrar túngu í fornöld [On the origin of the Icelandic language in ancient times], a seminal work and the
first to distinguish between Old Norse and Modern Icelandic.
According to Björn M. Ólsen (66), it rang in a new age for Icelandic language studies
and the publication of Old Norse-Icelandic
literature. Konráð Gíslason’s desire to advance knowledge and the study of Iceland’s
literary heritage and language was, moreover, evident in his involvement with Det
nordiske Literatur-Samfund [The Scandinavian Literature Society] in Copenhagen, of
which he was a founding member. The society was established in
1847 to promote and publish Scandinavia’s medieval literature in Denmark. According
to the initial bylaws—printed in its first publication, an edition of Hrafnkels saga (1847) by Konráð Gíslason—the editions produced by the society were to be prepared
“paa en med Almenhedens Tarv overenstemmende Maade” [in a way that is in the best
interest of the general public] (n.p.), and to be accompanied by a Danish translation
as well as additional information
needed to fully understand the text. As Springborg (231) points out, however, “general
public” primarily referred to (male-dominated) university and scholastic circles.
Konráð Gíslason prepared numerous text editions for Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund
and throughout his career approached the editing and publishing of Old-Norse Icelandic
texts with precision (see e.g. Finnur Jónsson 296). Konráð followed the so-called
Lachmannian method of editing, which attempts to
reconstruct a work’s archetype by comparing different versions and choosing the presumed
most original variants, thus producing a mixed text. As a grammarian and philologist, Konráð Gíslason’s editing practices were clearly
influenced by his special interests. His intention was not only to produce a readable
text, but also to ensure that his editions would be useful for linguistic studies
to the greatest degree possible, thus emphasizing the learned background of his intended
readership. In his introduction to Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni [Two sagas of Gísli Súrsson 1849], Konráð Gíslason (II-III) discusses seven possibilities
of how to present a text edition, such as facsimile,
diplomatic, or normalized. Moreover, he points out which type of edition is useful for what kind of work (e.g.
linguistic studies, literary studies). Konráð Gíslason (1849, III) concludes that—despite having their merits—facsimile
and diplomatic editions reach
a smaller readership. After going over the pros and cons of each type of edition,
Konráð states that he utilizes the fifth approach for his edition of Gísla saga, namely to reproduce the orthography of his exemplar, a practice that he followed
in all his editions for Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund (see also Gunnlaugsson 217–18),
including his edition of Fóstbræðra saga, which was published in Copenhagen in 1852.
Fóstbræðra saga survives in three well-known medieval manuscripts: Hauksbók (AM 544 4to, c1290-1360), Möðruvallabók (AM 132 fol., c1330-1370), and
Flateyjarbók (GKS 1005 fol., 1387–94). The redactions in these manuscripts “differ
substantially in content, structure, and style” (Bragason 268). Both Hauksbók and
Möðruvallabók only preserve parts of the saga. In Hauksbók, approximately
the first third of the text is missing, while Möðruvallabók lacks roughly one third
at the end. The text in the two manuscripts overlaps to some degree. Two eighteenth-century
paper copies of Möðruvallabók exist—AM 566 b 4to and NKS 1149 fol.—which were made
when the medieval manuscript was more complete than it is today. Editors (including
Konráð Gíslason) have, therefore, used these manuscripts to supplement missing parts
of Möðruvallabók. In Flateyjarbók,
Fóstbræðra saga “is incorporated in four separate sections into the saga of King Ólafr the Saint”
(Bragason 268). In the latter part of the saga, the two texts are interwoven in such
a complex manner
“that it is difficult to determine which sections originate from
Fóstbræðra saga” (Bragason 268). In addition to the three major medieval codices, two eighteenth-century
paper manuscripts,
AM 142 fol. and AM 566 a 4to, are copies of a now lost parchment codex, referred to
as Konungsbók or Membrana Regia (J. Kristjánsson 14, 18–25). For this reason, they
are considered of high significance, similar to the medieval
codices (Þórólfsson III).
Gunnlaugur Oddsson (1786-1835) published the first printed edition of Fóstbræðra saga in 1822. The basis for his edition was NKS 1176 a fol., a late-eighteenth-century
manuscript prepared for the Danish collector Peter Frederik Suhm (1728-1798). Suhm
was a member of the Arnamagnæan Commission (see e.g. Bratberg), which had been established
in 1772 to oversee the publication of Old Norse-Icelandic
texts preserved in Árni Magnússon’s manuscript collection, among other things (Malm
107). Suhm likely had NKS 1176 a fol. produced with the intention of using it as a
printer’s
copy to publish Fóstbræðra saga (Þórólfsson XL; J. Kristjánsson 27). The manuscript is a copy of AM 141 fol., with
variant readings from other manuscripts
(Oddsson, Formáli). AM 141 fol. was written at the end of the seventeenth century, and for the most part
contains the Flateyjarbók version of Fóstbræðra saga, but also five stanzas attributed to Þormóðr kolbrúnarskáld (c998-1030) not included
in Flateyjarbók. Towards the end of the manuscript, the text seems to be conflated
with the text from the now-lost Konungsbók (Þórólfsson e.g. III). Björn K. Þórólfsson
(XXI) points out that AM 141 fol.’s exemplar was not Flateyjarbók itself. In addition
to
the text of AM 141 fol., NKS 1176 a fol. also contains an extensive variant apparatus
in Latin, which Gunnlaugur Oddsson translated into Icelandic for his printed edition
(Þórólfsson XL).
In a letter to his father, dated 26 September 1850, Konráð Gíslason mentions working
on a new edition of Fóstbræðra saga. He points out that “hún er gefin út einu sinni áður, í Kaupmannahöfn, 1822; en ekki
vel gefin út, og orðin
þar á ofan ófáanleg” [it has been published once before, in Copenhagen, 1822; but
it is not edited well,
and moreover has become unavailable] (A. Kristjánsson 150). While Konráð Gíslason
does not go into detail about why he considers Gunnlaugur
Oddsson’s edition inferior, it may have been due to the fact that Gunnlaugur based
his edition on a paper manuscript which itself did not follow a single medieval text.
Moreover, Gunnlaugur’s exemplar was textually primarily related to the Flateyjarbók
version, which has been shown to be the furthest removed from the original (see J.
Kristjánsson 27–53).
Konráð Gíslason believed that the medieval manuscripts were the foundation on which
any study of Old Norse-Icelandic texts must be built and that any edition which neglects
this “er óhæf og ónóg til málfræðislegra rannsókna” [is unsuitable and inadequate
for the purpose of linguistic studies] (Ólsen 67). Konráð Gíslason was, thus, aware
of the importance of beginning the editorial process
by first consulting the medieval codices and giving preference to the presumed eldest
version of the text; two things Gunnlaugur Oddsson neglected to do. Moreover, even
though Konráð usually followed the Lachmannian method, he decided to print each version
of Fóstbræðra saga separately, rather than constructing a mixed text, likely because the three textual
versions are incomplete and differ significantly.
Konráð Gíslason’s 1852 edition of
Fóstbræðra saga bears the subtitle “Förste Hefte” [first volume], indicating that a two-part edition
was his original intent, which was in line with
the philosophy of Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund. The brief “midlertidigt forord” [preliminary
introduction] to Konráð’s
Fóstbræðra saga edition mentions that the current issue contains two redactions of the saga: Möðruvallabók
and Hauksbók. Regarding the Möðruvallabók text, Konráð Gíslason’s points out that
“Skindbogen er naturligviis (
sic) benytted saa langt den naar” [the parchment manuscript is obviously used as far
as possible]. The pointed addition of “naturligvis” [obviously] is quite possibly
a subtle criticism of Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s edition. However, Konráð
Gíslason notes that he uses AM 566 b 4to—which, as mentioned above, was produced when
Möðruvallabók was still more complete—to supplement missing text. According to Konráð’s
introduction to the first volume, the rest of the edition, i.e. the second volume,
was to include
sagaen efter Flateyjarbók; Anmærkninger; Forklaring over Qvadene, ved afdöde Dr. Svb.
Egilsson; en dansk Oversættelse, ved Hr. Registrator S. Thorlacius; samt Titelblad
og Forerindring til det Hele.
[the saga as it is preserved in Flateyjarbók; annotations; explanatory notes regarding
the stanzas by the late Dr. Sveinbjörn Egilsson; a Danish translation by Mr. Registrar
Skúli Thorlacius; as well as a title page and any corrigenda for the edition overall.]
Since the introduction indicates that Sveinbjörn Egilsson had passed away, the first
volume must have been finalized and published after 17 August 1852, Sveinbjörn’s day
of death.
This second volume was, however, never completed or published. Benedikt Sveinsson
(III-IV) assumes that the remaining edition was dropped, since Guðbrandur Vigfússon
and Carl
Richard Unger were preparing a multi-volume edition of Flateyjarbók (published 1860-1868),
making Konráð Gíslason’s Fóstbræðra saga edition according to the medieval codex obsolete. Konráð may also have wanted additional
time to prepare and publish the Flateyjarbók text, due to the complicated nature of
Fóstbræðra saga being interwoven with Óláfs saga helga in the medieval manuscript. Financial reasons may have been contributing factors
as well. Moreover, Björn M. Ólsen (74) points out that due to other projects and
for personal reasons, Konráð Gíslason’s
publication efforts slowed down for a few years following 1852.
Even though the second volume was never published, personal records—such as letters
and manuscripts by Konráð Gíslason and his collaborators—prove his continued efforts
to finish and revise his 1852 edition. These records allow for a reconstruction of
what Konráð had envisioned as the end product for his edition of Fóstbræðra saga, which he had hoped would be a significant improvement over the only available printed
rendition of the saga, Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s 1822 editio princeps.
The National Library of Iceland (Landsbókasafn Íslands) houses the manuscript Lbs
220 fol. With the exception of one small slip of paper and some annotations, the manuscript is written in Konráð Gíslason’s hand. According
to its catalogue description (Ólason 74), Lbs 220 fol. was used as the basis for Konráð
Gíslason’s 1853 edition of Fóstbræðra saga, i.e. the Icelandic reprint of his 1852 publication (see n. 7). It is far more plausible,
however, that the transcriptions and additional materials in the manuscript were produced
for the original Danish edition. Manuscript evidence suggests, furthermore, that Konráð
still utilized Lbs 220 fol. and added notes after the Danish and Icelandic editions
had been published (see below). Using Lbs 220 fol. as a starting point, and adding
evidence from other manuscript sources as well as letter correspondence, it is possible
to follow Konráð Gíslason’s timeline for producing his 1852 edition, reconstruct his
editorial process, and determine what the intended second volume may have looked like.
Lbs 220 fol. contains the two versions of Fóstbræðra saga, which Konráð Gíslason published in 1852. The manuscript begins with a transcription
of Fóstbræðra saga according to Möðruvallabók on fols. 1r-22v. This transcription is semi-diplomatic
(see n. 3) for the most part, i.e. Konráð indicates expanded abbreviations by underlining
the supplemented letters. Konráð clearly used AM 566 b 4to to fill lacunae in Möðruvallabók,
which conforms with his statement in the introduction to the 1852 edition. The Fóstbræðra saga text from Hauksbók—partly in semi-diplomatic, partly in normalized form (in accordance
with Hauksbók’s orthography)—follows on fols. 23r-39v. Konráð Gíslason also transcribes
parts of the Hauksbók text in facsimile (fols. 40r-43r), imitating letterforms from
his exemplar to a certain extent, and writing rubrics as well as decorated letters and initials in red, thus mimicking
the design of the medieval codex. This facsimile transcription corresponds to folios
77r-v, 78r-v, and the top-half of fol. 79v in Hauksbók. These folios in the medieval codex are particularly difficult to read, which may
have been the reason why Konráð Gíslason copied them separately in facsimile.
The methods with which Konráð transcribes the saga show great variation. He not only
alternates between facsimile, diplomatic, and normalized transcriptions, but also
switches from a two-column layout to long lines within his Möðruvallabók text, occasionally
adds line numbers (sometimes in accordance with the line numbers in Lbs 220 fol. itself,
sometimes corresponding with line numbers in the medieval codices), and at times adds
folio numbers from Hauksbók. In some cases, the reasons behind these changes can be
reconstructed (such as when Konráð switches from Möðruvallabók to AM 566 b 4to), but
most often Konráð Gíslason’s perceived inconsistencies cannot be explained. Since
his printed edition was to be normalized, it may simply not have mattered to Konráð
to be consistent in his transcription. The focus was obviously on the text itself,
where comparison between Möðruvallabók and Lbs 220 fol. as well as Hauksbók and Lbs
220 fol. show that he worked with great precision.
In addition to the texts from Möðruvallabók and Hauksbók, Konráð Gíslason also transcribes
some of the stanzas from Fóstbræðra saga from three different manuscripts on folios 44r-46v of Lbs 220 fol., with some marginal
comments written by Sveinbjörn Egilsson. The final section of Lbs 220 fol. (fols. 47r-75v) consists of “Anmærkninger” [annotations].
That the transcriptions of Möðruvallabók and Hauksbók in Lbs 220 fol. were the basis
for Konráð Gíslason’s Fóstbræðra saga edition, as its catalogue description suggests, seems certain, although there were
clearly—and unsurprisingly—several steps between Konráð’s initial transcriptions and
the final print, i.e. proofs to be corrected. The transcriptions as well as the 1852 edition also bear witness to Konráð Gíslason’s
conservative and perfectionistic work as an editor and his practice to adhere closely
to the language form of his exemplar. In the top-left corner on fol. 32r in Lbs 220
fol., for example, Konráð adds “enn overalt hvor Mbr. har det!” [enn everywhere where the manuscript has it!]. It can be observed that Konráð Gíslason
adds a second n to several en [but] on this page (e.g. l. 1, 2, 4). An examination of the 1852 edition reveals
that Konráð initially spells en as it would be expected with one n, but later uses two n, as the marginal note in Lbs 220 fol. suggests. The first instance in the printed edition occurs within the Hauksbók text (“enn þat
er þeir máttu af sjá” (80, l. 23)), slightly earlier than the marginal note in Lbs
220 fol. According to Jón Sigurðsson
(JS 19 fol., fol. 108r) a new scribe takes over in Hauksbók, beginning with the chapter
where Konráð Gíslason begins to make the switch from en to enn (which in Hauksbók is written “En̅”). Konráð Gíslason thus follows the orthography
of his exemplar, even to the point
of differentiating the spelling conventions of different scribes.
While it is possible that the 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga does not contain any variant readings to reach a wider, more general audience, as
suggested in the bylaws of Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund, the annotations preserved
in Lbs 220 fol. (fols. 47r-75v) may indicate instead that Konráð Gíslason was planning
on adding annotations and variant readings in footnotes in his revision of the first
volume. This is a possible indication that Springborg’s (231) assumption is correct
and the “general public” referred to in the bylaws of the literary society in truth
primarily refers to an
educated elite. In his annotations in Lbs 220 fol., Konráð Gíslason points out special
features in the manuscripts, for example, the use of red ink. He also makes references to additions to AM 566 b 4to in the hand of Finnur Magnússon, who had published parts of Fóstbræðra saga in Volume 2 of Grønlands historiske mindesmærker [Greenland’s historical memorials], and explains his editorial choices, such as conjectured
readings of illegible or
erroneous phrases. The annotations in Lbs 220 fol. resemble those in other text editions by Konráð Gíslason,
such as in his edition of Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni.
As was mentioned, Lbs 220 fol. also provides proof that Konráð Gíslason used the manuscript
after his edition had been published. The unbound leaves of Lbs 220 fol. are, for
example, wrapped in a large piece of sturdy paper. A handwritten note on this cover
indicates that the contents of the manuscript were to be used “til framhalds útgáfunnar
á Fóstbræðra sögu” [for the continuation of the Fóstbræðra saga edition]. At the bottom of the same page, Konráð adds, “Skýring Svb. Egilssonar á
vísunum er hjá Skúla Thorl. (9/8 54)” [Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s explanatory notes regarding
the stanzas are in Skúli Thorlacius’
possession, 9 August 1854]. The date indicates that Konráð Gíslason was still using
Lbs 220 fol. and working
on the second volume to his edition a year after the Icelandic reprint had been published.
As noted above, Konráð mentions in his preliminary introduction to the 1852 edition
that the second volume was to contain Fóstbræðra saga according to Flateyjarbók, explanatory notes to the stanzas by Sveinbjörn Egilsson,
and a Danish translation of the text by Skúli Thorlacius.
No written evidence survives of how or when Sveinbjörn Egilsson agreed to assist Konráð
Gíslason with his Fóstbræðra saga edition, particularly the stanzas. Nonetheless, several letters and documents give
insight into their collaboration. In a letter to Sveinbjörn Egilsson, dated 30 September
1850, Konráð Gíslason informs Sveinbjörn that he intends to send him the Flateyjarbók
version of Fóstbræðra saga as well as the stanzas “með fyrstu vorskipum” [with the first spring ships] (A. Kristjánsson
152). Presumably in response to this letter, Sveinbjörn writes to Konráð Gíslason on 27
February 1851, asking him for clear instructions on how to edit the stanzas, “því
mér er grunar á að hér sé nokkuð ábótavant” [because I suspect that there will be
scope for improvement] (KG 32 LIII No. 416). Konráð’s communication with Sveinbjörn
Egilsson in these letters indicates that
he had a timeline in mind for preparing the Flateyjarbók version of Fóstbræðra saga for the second volume.
Between February 1851 and March 1852, Konráð Gíslason and Sveinbjörn Egilsson exchanged
additional letters, which, however, are either not preserved or do not discuss their
collaboration on the Fóstbræðra saga edition. The next time Fóstbræðra saga is mentioned in their correspondence is in a letter by Sveinbjörn Egilsson, dated
to 5 March 1852. Here, Sveinbjörn says, “En um alt þetta vona eg að geta talað við
yður sjálfan að sumri. Þá býst eg við, að
við fáum Fóstbræðra söguna yðar” [but I hope to talk with you about all of this in
person in the summer. I suspect that
we will then get your Fóstbræðra saga] (KG 32 LIII No. 418), suggesting that Sveinbjörn was aware that the first volume
was close to being printed.
While work on the Flateyjarbók text may have delayed the second volume, Sveinbjörn
Egilsson’s explanatory notes regarding the stanzas were well on their way. In a letter dated 10 September 1850 (KG 32 LIII No. 415), Sveinbjörn writes to Konráð
Gíslason regarding the stanzas in
Fóstbræðra saga, admitting that some of them are highly obscure. Konráð also discusses the stanzas
in
Fóstbræðra saga in the aforementioned letter, dated 30 September 1850. The letter mentions that Konráð
sent along proofs of twenty-four pages of his text edition as well as some stanzas
“sem Þjer voruð ekki búnir með” [which you (i.e. Sveinbjörn Egilsson) had not finished
yet] (A. Kristjánsson 152). Konráð Gíslason apologizes for not having been able to
compare the stanzas with
those found in Flateyjarbók, admitting that their interpretation may be quite challenging.
Sveinbjörn Egilsson replied to Konráð on 27 February 1851 (KG 32 LIII No. 416):
Eg læt nú fylgja Vísurnar úr Fóstbrs. með upplausnarmynd einhverri, sem eg bið yður
vel að virða og færa til betra vegar, ef þér annars getið fundið eitthvað í þeim nýtilegt.
Þær eru mér víða mjög óljósar. Eg fer nú að gerast leiður á þessháttar, og held bezt
sé að sleppa öllum vísum, og fara að eins og þeir á Hólum í Gíslasögu Súrssonar, og
setja stjörnur í staðinn. Þesskonar stjörnur þurfa ekki að óprýða útgáfurnar. Einginn
maður, hvort heldur er, les vísurnar, og af þeim er, held eg lítið að læra nú á tíðum,
þegar öll hugsun hefir tekið aðra stefnu, eins og betur fer og alténd mátti við búast
að verða mundi. ætla það væri ekki viðkunnanlegast fyrir almenning og alla, að prenta
sögurnar, eins og nú er talað, þar sem því verður við komið?
[I am now attaching the stanzas from Fóstbræðra saga including with the word order rendered in prose, which I ask you to treat with kindness
and improve, if you can find anything useful in them. I find them very unclear in
many places. I am getting a bit frustrated with this task now and consider it the
best course of action to leave out the stanzas completely and go about it as in the
Hólar edition of Gísla saga Súrssonar and print asterisks instead. These kinds of asterisks do not have to deface the editions.
No one reads the stanzas anyway, and I do not think one can learn much from them at
this point in time where all thinking focuses on other things, and luckily so, as
we could have expected. Would it not be best for the general public and everyone to
print the sagas as we speak today wherever possible?]
Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s phrasing of “fyrir almenning og alla” [for the general public
and everyone] is interesting, quite possibly implying that—much like Konráð Gíslason
and Det nordiske
Literatur-Samfund—“general public” may have referred to an educated elite, whereas
“everyone” may include those less educated. Since Konráð Gíslason’s edition of
Fóstbræðra saga contains all stanzas, it is clear that he rejected Sveinbjörn’s proposal to drop
(some of) the stanzas altogether, likely because it would have gone against Konráð’s
conviction to provide an edition that resembles the medieval text as closely as possible.
Konráð was certainly aware of the complicated nature of skaldic poetry, but he considered
it an artform that needed to be preserved and appreciated. Konráð argued (1872, 314)
that the skalds wrote for kings, earls, and other important political figures, and
that the audience was expected to have the knowledge and skill to decipher even the
most complicated stanzas. In short, the stanzas were not supposed to be easily understood;
as Konráð Gíslason states quite pointedly, they “ere ikke for eenfoldige eller uforstandige
Hørere eller Læsere” [are not meant for simple-minded or inept listeners or readers]
(1872, 314). Even though the general readership may have had little interest in the
complicated
stanzas or understanding thereof, from a scholarly point of view, these stanzas remained
important for linguistic, literary, and even historical studies. Saga writers used
the stanzas—in the case of
Fóstbræðra saga those attributed to Þormóðr kolbrúnarskáld—to give the stories the appearance of
historicity, and it was not until the early twentieth century that more and more scholars
doubted the reliability of the sagas as historical sources (see e.g. Cormack 13 n.
1). To Konráð Gíslason, Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s suggestion to leave out the stanzas,
therefore, must have seemed entirely unreasonable and went against his own scholarly
convictions. Moreover, considering Konráðʼs aforementioned belief that the stanzas
were not meant to be easy, the inclusion of the stanzas serves as further proof that
Konráð produced his edition for an educated elite rather than the general public.
Despite their disagreement regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the stanzas in
Fóstbræðra saga, Konráð Gíslason relied on Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s assistance and the explanatory notes
Sveinbjörn provided for his edition. In a chapter dealing with stanzas in dróttkvæði meter published in Njála II (1889), Konráð Gíslason (119) comments that he follows Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s redactions
of the stanzas in Fóstbræðra saga in all instances. However, while the first eight stanzas in Konráð’s edition of Möðruvallabók
and all of the stanzas in the Hauksbók section are presented in normalized form, like
the main text, the remaining stanzas in Möðruvallabók have been left in facsimile. It can be noted that Konráð Gíslason follows the same pattern in his transcription
of Möðruvallabók in Lbs 220 fol., where in the first case (fol. 14r) he corrects
the stanza from normalized to facsimile. The stanzas that Konráð Gíslason
provides in facsimile in the Möðruvallabók text are also preserved in Hauksbók. Konráð’s
reason for transcribing these stanzas in facsimile in the Möðruvallabók version may,
therefore, have been related to the fact that both medieval codices preserve the same
stanzas, with slight textual variation.
Despite Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s obvious occasional frustration, the collaboration between
him and Konráð Gíslason regarding the stanzas in Fóstbræðra saga remained close and long-lasting. As was already noted, Konráð Gíslason transcribes a small number of stanzas from
three manuscripts (Möðruvallabók, AM 566 b 4to, and AM 153 fol.) in Lbs 220 fol. These
pages contain annotations in Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s hand, indicating that Konráð must
have sent them to Iceland for Sveinbjörn to work with (as the letter correspondence
cited above also implies). The same was the case with transcriptions of stanzas in
Konráð Gíslason’s hand preserved in Lbs 459 4to, containing documents owned by Sveinbjörn
Egilsson. Here, Konráð transcribes the stanzas either in accordance with AM 566 b
4to or Hauksbók and adds variant readings from other manuscripts below each stanza. He also makes reference to the page numbers containing these stanzas in Gunnlaugur
Oddsson’s 1822 edition of Fóstbræðra saga and indicates which stanzas do not occur in the Möðruvallabók or Hauksbók versions.
In addition to Konráð Gíslason’s transcriptions, Lbs 459 4to also contains various
transcriptions and clean copies of the stanzas in Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s hand, partly
already with explanatory notes added. Sveinbjörn appears to have used the various
transcriptions in Lbs 459 4to to later produce a final clean copy, which he then sent
to Konráð Gíslason. This copy is preserved in KG 29 I 1, and could very well be the
document Sveinbjörn Egilsson refers to in his letter dated 27 February 1851.
In KG 29 I 1, Sveinbjörn Egilsson transcribes all stanzas from Fóstbræðra saga in normalized form, including stanzas preserved in neither Hauksbók nor Möðruvallabók.
Underneath each stanza, he renders the text again, changing the word order to prose
to make the stanzas more intelligible. Then he adds explanatory notes regarding the
meaning of phrases, kennings, and heiti in footnotes. Sveinbjörn Egilsson also provides references to printed editions, such
as the 1822 edition of Fóstbræðra saga or Finnur Magnússon’s Grønlands historiske mindesmærker. This section of KG 29 I 1 was likely intended as the exemplar to be used for the
second volume of Konráð Gíslason’s Fóstbræðra saga edition and is extremely similar to Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s explanatory notes to the
stanzas in Konráð’s 1849 edition of Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni (169–80). This corroborates that Konráð Gíslason had an edition of Fóstbræðra saga in mind that strongly resembled his Gísla saga edition, conforming to the ideas of Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund to promote the
Old Scandinavian literature for the “educated public” in Denmark.
On the final pages of KG 29 I 1, Sveinbjörn Egilsson provides a Danish translation
of the stanzas in Fóstbræðra saga. This, again, mirrors the set-up of Konráð Gíslason’s edition of Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni, where Sveinbjörn provided a Danish translation of the stanzas (182–88). It seems
likely that KG 29 I 1 was the document Konráð Gíslason refers to on the
cover of Lbs 220 fol., containing explanatory notes by Sveinbjörn Egilsson about the
stanzas from Fóstbræðra saga and in 1854 in the possession of Skúli Thorlacius. Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s Danish translation
of the stanzas may have been the primary reason why Skúli Thorlacius received the
document. As the preliminary introduction of the 1852 Fóstbræðra saga edition mentions, Thorlacius was responsible for translating Fóstbræðra saga into Danish for the second volume. Due to the complicated nature of Icelandic stanzas,
Thorlacius may have appreciated Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s pre-translation of the stanzas
into Danish, or Konráð Gíslason may have asked Thorlacius to see if Egilsson’s translations
needed revising. However, no such translation survives and it is impossible to tell
to what extant—if at all—Thorlacius had completed the task.
The editio princeps of Fóstbræðra saga was published by Gunnlaugur Oddsson in 1822. It is based on a conflated text preserved
in a paper copy of a seventeenth-century copy of a manuscript related to, but not
directly derived from, the medieval codex Flateyjarbók. In Flateyjarbók, the text
of Fóstbræðra saga is interwoven with that of the saga of King Óláfr the Saint. This version of Fóstbræðra saga has been shown to be the furthest removed from the original text (see J. Kristjánsson
27–53).
Konráð Gíslason’s letter to his father from the fall of 1850 demonstrates that it
was Konráð’s intention to improve on Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s edition. Even though it
is not stated explicitly, it seems plausible that Konráð Gíslason’s main criticism
of Gunnlaugur’s edition was Gunnlaugur’s choice of an exemplar several stages removed
from the original text. While Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s intention may have been to simply
provide a readable, complete version of Fóstbræðra saga, Konráð Gíslason clearly had an edition in mind that appealed to a more educated
audience. As the preliminary introduction to Konráð Gíslason’s 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga indicates, Konráð wanted to publish the text according to Möðruvallabók, Hauksbók,
and Flateyjarbók, thus providing readers with separate text editions of all major
medieval manuscripts preserving the saga. Jónas Kristjánsson (28) concludes that
Hauksbók and Möðruvallabók were the focal points of Konráð Gíslason’s
edition because they are the two eldest codices. The preliminary introduction to Konráð’s
edition, moreover, shows that he also wished to provide readers with a detailed analysis
and explanatory notes regarding the stanzas of Fóstbræðra saga, as well as a translation for the Danish readership.
The various manuscripts and letters discussed in this article bear witness to Konráð
Gíslason’s ongoing efforts to revise and complete the Fóstbræðra saga edition he had envisioned. This edition was likely to resemble that of Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni. In this edition, Konráð Gíslason writes a detailed introduction of twenty-two pages,
which includes, for example, a discussion of palaeographic and orthographic features
(1849, IV-XIII). Some of Konráð Gíslason’s notes in the last section of Lbs 220 fol.
(fols. 47r-75r) suggest that Konráð had similar intentions for a revised longer introduction
for
his Fóstbræðra saga edition. The annotations preserved on folios 47r-75v in Lbs 220 fol., moreover, include in
many ways topics Konráð Gíslason discusses in footnotes to Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni, suggesting that he not only had a more detailed introduction but also annotations
and a variant apparatus planned for Fóstbræðra saga. Like the edition of Tvær sögur af Gísla Súrssyni, Fóstbræðra saga was to contain explanatory notes regarding the stanzas of the saga, as well as a
Danish translation of the stanzas by Sveinbjörn Egilsson. Lastly, the preliminary
introduction to the 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga mentions an intended Danish translation by Skúli Thorlacius, thus going one step
further than the edition of Gísla saga Súrssonar.
The intended two-volume edition of Fóstbræðra saga, as it can be reconstructed, was most certainly in line with the philosophy set forth
by Det nordiske Literatur-Samfund to publish Old Norse-Icelandic literature—which
played a crucial role in the wake of nineteenth-century national Romanticism in Scandinavia—in
a way most suitable for university and scholastic circles. It is undeniable that for
Konráð Gíslason and other scholars his 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga represented an improvement over Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s editio princeps, providing readers
and scholars with precise copies of the two primary sources of the saga text. Nonetheless,
the unfinished and preliminary nature of Konráð’s 1852 edition—lacking the Flateyjarbók
version, an introduction, variant readings, a translation, everything that would raise
its status to that of a true scholarly edition (disguised as being created for the
“general public”)—meant that an edition comprising all major manuscript branches was
still lacking.
The text of Flateyjarbók was not printed in its entirety until the 1860s (see Vigfússon
and Unger), and Björn K. Þórólfsson’s scholarly edition of Fóstbræðra saga, the first to incorporate almost all significant manuscripts (and as such likely
a reaction to Konráð Gíslason’s incomplete edition), was not published until 1925-1927.
Konráð Gíslason’s Fóstbræðra saga was succeeded not only by scholarly editions. Popular editions, designed to reach
a broader audience in Iceland rather than merely an educated elite (primarily in Denmark),
emerged as well. In 1899, Valdimar Ásmundarson published Fóstbræðra saga as part of the Íslendinga sögur series established by the bookseller Sigurður Kristjánsson.
Sigurður lamented that no one in Iceland truly knew the sagas since the texts were
not available for the general public, only in expensive scholarly editions. He thus
created the Íslendinga sögur series with the aim of producing affordable text editions
for everyone (Ásmundarson 1891, III; Skúlason 5). Valdimar Ásmundarson (1899, I) based his Fóstbræðra saga edition on that of Konráð Gíslason, following Möðruvallabók in as far as possible
and only switching to Hauksbók once the Möðruvallabók text breaks off, even though
Valdimar assumes that Hauksbók presents the more original text. Valdimar also publishes
excerpts from Fóstbræðra saga according to Flateyjarbók following the main part of the edition. Valdimar Ásmundarson
(1891, VI) states in his initial guidelines for the Íslendinga sögur series that he
intends
to follow the orthography of the medieval codices (much like Konráð Gíslason had done
in his editions). His Fóstbræðra saga as well as other editions in the series are, however, printed in the so-called standardized
old spelling (samræmd stafsetning forn), an artificially created orthography based on that of the oldest Icelandic manuscripts,
indicating that Valdimar changed his editorial practice at some point.
As a reaction to Valdimar Ásmundarson’s edition, Benedikt Sveinsson published the
saga anew in 1925, again using the standardized old spelling. In his introduction,
Benedikt Sveinsson (XIV) points out that Björn K. Þórólfsson’s scholarly edition
was forthcoming, but that
his popular edition—which like Valdimar’s was financed by Sigurður Kristjánsson—could
not wait until Björn K. Þórólfsson’s had been finalized, since Valdimar Ásmundarson’s
edition was completely sold out. Benedikt Sveinsson (XIV) goes on to say that it
was necessary to compare all previous editions and correct
the most obvious mistakes, suggesting that he considered Valdimar Ásmundarson’s and
quite possibly also Gunnlaugur Oddsson’s and Konráð Gíslason’s editions insufficient
and lacking in quality. Unlike Konráð Gíslason and Valdimar Ásmundarson, Benedikt
Sveinsson focused on Hauksbók—the oldest (though not necessarily most original) text—in
those instances where Möðruvallabók and Hauksbók overlap. Like Valdimar Ásmundarson,
Benedikt Sveinsson prints excerpts from Flateyjarbók at the end of his edition.
In 1943, Fóstbræðra saga was published in the Íslenzk fornrit series, the standard scholarly editions most
frequently cited today. Three years later, in 1946—and thus after Iceland had been
declared an independent republic—Guðni Jónsson published a reading copy of Fóstbræðra saga for the general public as part of his Íslendinga sögur series 1946b. In the preface
to the first volume of the series (also published in 1946), Guðni
Jónsson (1946a, XXVI) explains that the books—“árgjöf til Íslendinga á morgni hins
endurreista lýðveldis” [a gift to the Icelanders in light of the re-established republic]—are
suitable for educational as well as entertainment purposes, and are to ensure
that the Icelandic people are able to pass their literary heritage on to the next
generation. The editions were meant as a way for Icelanders to learn about themselves,
their history, and their place amongst the nations of this world (G. Jónsson 1946a,
XXVI).
The Old Norse-Icelandic manuscripts and sagas played an important role during the
seventeenth century, when Denmark and Sweden battled for supremacy over each other
and for their place amongst the world’s most powerful nations. The same remained true
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Urged on by the ideas of national
Romanticism, not only Denmark and Sweden but also other nations around the globe,
and the Icelandic people themselves, used the sagas to justify their historical and
political importance. This trend continued (and continues) during the nineteenth,
twentieth, and even twenty-first centuries. Because the Old Norse-Icelandic texts
were (and are) such an important source, text editions and translations of the sagas
were (and remain) in high demand during the time periods in question.
It is evident that editions of Old Norse-Icelandic texts—Fóstbræðra saga and other sagas alike—vary greatly, ranging from facsimile, to scholarly, to popular,
from imitating the orthography of the exemplar, following an artificial old standard,
to adhering to modern spelling, written in the original or reproduced in adaptations
and translations. The possibilities are endless, one might say, always depending on
the philosophy and often political views of those producing the printed works; and
each possibility comes with its own sets of problems. Valdimar Ásmundarson, for example,
laments in his preface to the first volume of the Íslendinga sögur series (1891,
iii-iv) that publishing an edition for the general public is problematic, because,
unlike
scholarly editions, popular editions provide a mixed text void of variant readings
and most annotations. The reader thus loses sight of the fact that manuscripts can
vary greatly. At the same time, he—like his publisher Sigurður Kristjánsson—understood
the need for affordable popular editions.
The debate between proponents of scholarly editions on one hand and popular editions
on the other continued throughout the twentieth century. During the early 1940s, Halldór
Laxness and other likeminded Icelanders proposed to publish the sagas with Modern
Icelandic orthography (see Crocker in this volume), arguing that the artificial standardized
old spelling “repel[led] ordinary readers” (J. K. Helgason 150). The scholarly community, however, feared for the future of Icelandic culture, which
was deeply rooted in Iceland’s literary heritage (which was traditionally published
in the standardized archaic norm). In fact, as a reaction to Laxness’ proposal, the
Icelandic parliament attempted—but ultimately failed—to make the artificial orthography
the law and give Hið íslenzka fornritafélag [The Icelandic Texts Society] unlimited
authorization to publish Old Norse-Icelandic literature (J. K. Helgason 145).
The vehemence of this clash over the past obscures the fact that both parties appear
to have had the same goal: “to preserve native traditions and establish continuity
between past and future, the
rural and the urban” (J. K. Helgason 145), during a time in which foreign influences
and urbanization rapidly and dramatically
changed Icelandic society. However, “the best way to establish such a continuity was
fiercely disputed” (J. K. Helgason 145). Even today, scholars still frequently disagree
on the best approach for editing
and publishing the Old Norse-Icelandic texts. While some remain rooted in the traditional
ways of producing standard scholarly editions with variant apparati, others explore
new ways of bringing medieval literature to the public, such as interactive digital
editions, allowing the reader, for example, to choose between facsimile, diplomatic,
and normalized.
What has been revealed throughout this article’s discussion is that no edition (and
no manuscript for that matter) can ever be considered perfect, and some—such as Konráð
Gíslason’s 1852 edition of Fóstbræðra saga—remain incomplete or even unpublished. Perhaps it is best to think along the lines
of Sigfús Sigurhjartarson, one of the founders and Deputy Chairman of Iceland’s Socialist
Party, who on 13 April 1943 held a passionate speech in front of the lower chamber
of the Icelandic Althing in light of the criticism of other members of parliament
against Halldór Laxness’ proposed Modern Icelandic edition of Njáls saga. Sigfús Sigurhjartarson (46) defended Halldór’s endeavour, arguing that the best
way to honour the Icelandic sagas
is to publish academic editions with detailed introductions and variant apparati for
the scholarly community, quality editions in Modern Icelandic for the general public,
as well as summaries and excerpts for children.
As Sigfús Sigurhjartarson implies, each edition, each adaptation, and translation
has merit. And no matter their motifs or philosophies, the work of editors, translators,
and adaptors alike is—at its core—based on the Icelandic manuscripts, both medieval
and post-medieval, which—much like the printed works—can be seen as reactions to,
and sometimes criticisms of, a previously established text and/or milieu.