In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Morkinskinna I and II ed. by Ármann Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson
  • Jonas Wellendorf
Morkinskinna I and II. Edited by Ármann Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson. Íslenzk fornrit XXIII–XXIV. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 2011. Pp. lxviii + 332/cxv + 270; 20 illustrations. $61.

Since the first volume of the Íslenzk fornrit series appeared in 1933, the series has held a firm position as a sine qua non for all who are interested in the vast and fascinating literature of medieval Iceland. The new edition of the kings’ saga Morkinskinna under review here will no doubt become the standard edition as well, referred to in all literary and historical scholarship on the text. It provides its readers with a reliable text in the standardized, easy-to-read Old Norse orthography, accompanied by helpful footnotes in modern Icelandic, maps, genealogies, and other reference material, and a detailed index that makes it easy to find any particular passage one might be looking for in the text. Ármann Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, the two editors, have provided us with the first edition of the text since Finnur Jónsson’s unnormalized edition of 1932, and the first edition ever with normalized orthography.

The general format and layout of the Íslenzk fornrit editions have changed little in the course of the years, but one doesn’t have to read many pages of the Introduction to the new edition of Morkinskinna to realize that the emphasis has shifted. Earlier editors in the series strove first and foremost to situate their texts in relation to other texts, and the manuscripts to one another. They strove to identify the putative sources (written or oral) used by the authors—see, for example, the two recent volumes with kings’ sagas: Sverris saga, ÍF XXX from 2007, and Færeyinga saga and Oddr munkr’s Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, ÍF XXV from 2006. The Introduction to the present volume prioritizes analysis of the printed text, focusing on its structure, narrative art (frásagnarlist), ideology, and the image it gives of kingship and society. The two editors have shared the labor. Large parts of the Introduction were written by Ármann Jakobsson, and in their style and interests these sections approach the interpretive essay. Having published a monograph on the saga (his doctoral dissertation Staður í nýjum heimi: Konungasagan Morkinskinna from 2002), Ármann Jakobsson is eminently qualified to treat these aspects of the text, and [End Page 547] he draws upon this monograph in his sections of the Introduction. Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, on the other hand, did the greater part of the philological work in preparing the text itself and its many stanzas.

The Introduction begins by treating topics such as the manuscript (GkS 1007 fol, ca. 1275), its name, the textual transmission, authorship, sources, and so forth. We learn that Torfæus nicknamed the manuscript Morkinskinna (rotten parchment) in reference to the deteriorated state of its bindings. It is estimated that the manuscript originally consisted of fifty-three folios, of which sixteen are now lost. In this edition, these lacunae have been filled with clearly marked text from other relevant manuscripts (Flateyjarbók, Hulda, and Fríssbók). It is argued that the text of Morkinskinna was composed in Iceland around 1200 and was the result of a conscious authorial effort. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have argued that the saga text has come down to us in a very interpolated form, and various attempts have been made to identify possible interpolations. After a discussion of this issue, drawing in particular on the scholarship of Jonna Louis-Jensen, the editors conclude that there are no clear indications that significant changes have been made to the text (“Engar skýrar vísbendingar eru … um að Morkinskinna hafi tekið miklum breytingum” [p. xxxiv]). They therefore dismiss the idea of an “Older Morkinskinna” text significantly different from the text we know today. The text as it is preserved in the manuscript of 1275 is consequently taken to be a good representative of the saga that was written around 1220. One might take issue with...

pdf

Share