Víga-Glúms Saga [2 ed.] 0198111177, 9780198111177

Citation preview

EYJAFJQRÐR

VÍGA- GLÚMS SAGA E D IT E D BY

G. TURVILLE-PETRE

SECO N D

E D IT IO N

OXFORD AT

THE

CLA R E N D O N PRESS 1 960

Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C.4 GLASGOW

NEW YORK TORONTO

BOMBAY CALCUTTA

MELBOURNE WELLINGTON-

MADRAS KARACHI KUALA LUMPUR

CAPE TOWN

IBADAN

NAIROBI ACCRA

© Oxford University Press i q 6 o

FIRST

PUBLISHED

SECOND REPRINTED AT

EDITION

LITHOGRAPHICALLY THE

UNIVERSITY BY

PRINTER

VIVIAN TO

THE

I94O i960 IN

PRESS,

GREAT

BRITAIN

OXFORD

RIDLER UNIVERSITY

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION S in c e Víga-Glúms Saga was first published by the Press in 1940 it has been widely used by students of Icelandic in Englishspeaking countries. I am now more firmly convinced than ever that this saga, as it is preserved in the text of Mgðruvallabók, provides one of the finest examples of Icelandic narrative prose, the more striking because of its economy and highly polished style. At the same time Víga-Glúms Saga is not among the easier sagas, and many students have suffered grave difficulty in understanding its idioms. I trust that this difficulty will be largely overcome by the glossary which I have now added, realizing, as I do, that all too few editions of Icelandic texts with apparatus suitable for English-speaking students have yet been made available. I hope that in its present form the edition will be serviceable especially for students who have passed through the initial stages and have mastered E. V. Gordon’s Introduction to Old Norse in the revised edition of A. R. Taylor (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1957). Except for a few very small alterations, the introduction, text, and notes in the present edition have been allowed to stand. It may, however, be helpful to give a short account of the main works dealing with this saga which have been published since 1940.1 The history of the text,,as given in § II of the Introduction, has won general approval, and most scholars now agree that the text of Mgðruvallabók has been greatly, although most skilfully, shortened, while the original form of the saga is represented better by the fragments C. and V . here given in Appendixes I and II. This view has, however, been challenged by A. C. Bouman,12 who maintains that the text of Mgdruvallabók stands closer to 1 For further bibliographical details see Jóhann S. Hannesson, ‘T h e Sagas of Icelanders’ (Islandica, xxxviii), Ithaca, N ew York, 1957. 2 ‘ Observations on Syntax and Style of some Icelandic Sagas’ (Studia Islandica, 15), Reykjavik, 1956.

iv

PREFACE

the original than do those of the fragments C. and V.y which must in this case be regarded as expansions. Professor Bouman’s conclusions are based almost exclusively on statistics, and I must confess that I have had great difficulty in following his arguments. At the same time, I am able to agree closely with Jónas Kristjánsson,1 who has reviewed Bouman’s work, and finds that arguments based on numbers alone are not strong enough to carry conviction in face of all other evidence. An edition of this saga with an excellent introduction and notes in Icelandic was published by Jónas Kristjánsson in the series Islenzk Fornrityz and the editor gave me a great deal of helpful advice while I was working on the glossary. The frag­ ment C. has also been published in diplomatic form by Jón Helgason,3 to whose work the reader may be referred. The work of the late Jón Jóhanesson on the Landnámabók4 has also some bearing on Víga-Glúms Saga, and his arguments suggest the existence of a lost Esphœlinga Saga, in which many of the characters who appear in Víga-Glúms Saga were de­ scribed. The form and age of the Esphadinga Sagay as well as its relations with Víga-Glúms Saga, were discussed in greater detail by Jónas Kristjánsson in § 2 of his introduction to the edition quoted above. It seems probable that this lost saga was the ultimate source of the divergent account of Ghimr’s last battle found in the version of Landnámabók which is preserved in the Younger Melabók (Þórðarbók), and briefly discussed in § III B of the introduction to the present volume. Some suggestions which may lead to a more precise dating of Viga-Glums Saga than that attempted in § I of the intro­ duction to this edition may be found in the work of Einar 01. Sveinsson, Dating the Icelandic Sagas. 5 I would like to express my thanks to those who have helped me in my work on the glossary, and particularly to A. R. Taylor 1 2 3 4 5

See Skirnir, cxxxi, Reykjavik, 1957, pp. 246-9. Islenzk Fom rit, ix, Eyfirdinga Spgur, Reykjavik, 1956. Håndskriftet A M 445c, /, 4to., Copenhagen, 1956. Gerdir Landnámabókar, Reykjavik, 1941, esp. pp. 65 ff. Dating the Icelandic Sagas, London, Viking Society, 1958, esp. pp. 85 ff.

PREFACE

V

and R. W. Burchfield, who have read through it with the utmost diligence, and to Joan Turville-Petre, who has given much advice. But lest these, or any others who have assisted me, should be held responsible for faults found in the glossary, I may end with the words of the Hungrvaka: ‘verð ek ok af því skyldugr til, at þat mun af minum vQldum ok vanrœkð, ef þat er nqkkut í þessu máli sem rangt reynisk, þat er ritat er, en eigi þeira manna er ek þykkjumk þenna fróðleik eptir hafa.’ G. T . P. February 1959.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION Vtga-Glúms Saga is an example of the Icelandic Family Saga in a highly developed form. In addition to its literary merits it has great antiquarian interest. Its references to pre-Christian cults are illuminating, though they must be studied with caution; and its references to legal practice have special value. It is perhaps one of the most important documents for the study of early Icelandic culture. The present edition is designed for the student of literature and cultural history as well as of linguistics. For this reason the notes are fuller than those in most editions of the sagas. The evidence for family cults and superstitions has been treated in some detail, and an attempt has been made to trace those echoes in phraseology which help to show the place of Vtga-Glúms Saga in Icelandic narrative literature. The fragments of texts printed in the Appendixes are intended to give the reader an idea of the changes which the saga suffered in course of scribal transmission. M y thanks are due to Professor Jón Helgason, curator of the Arnamagnæan Collection in Copenhagen, for continued assis­ tance while I was working through numerous manuscripts of this saga in his keeping. Without his help it would not have been possible to establish some of the readings adopted. I have also to thank Dr. Guðmundur Finnbogason, curator of the

PREFACE

vi

National Library of Iceland, where I worked on the codex Mgðruvallabók in 1932, and Dr. Benedikt Sveinsson, subLibrarian of the National Library, who provided me with biblio­ graphical details. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Sigurður Nordal, with whom I enjoyed many interesting discussions while the work was in progress. Dr. Einar 01 . Sveinsson offered many valuable suggestions. Stefán Jónsson, the present owner of Munkaþverá, has often been my host and has given me much information about the topography and traditions of Eyjafjörður. It would be difficult to overestimate all that I owe to Pro­ fessor Tolkien; his sympathy and encouragement have been constant and, throughout the work, I have had the benefit of his wide scholarship. The late Professor E. V. Gordon approved this work in its first draft. M y thanks for assistance are also due to Professor Bruce Dickins, Professor Halldor Hermannsson, Mr. Eirikur Benedikz, Rev. Gervase Mathew, Professor W. H. Vogt, of Kiel, Dr. Sigfús Blöndal, of Copenhagen, Mr. A. Campbell, Mr. W. Davis, and Miss E. S. Olszewska. I had the special advan­ tage of access to the unique Scandinavian libraries of Guðbrandur Vigfiisson and F. York Powell, now housed in Christ Church, while I was working in Oxford. The conception of this work is in no small part due to the inspiring influence of these great scholars. G. T . P. O xford,

April 1940.

CONTENTS M AP O F EY JA FJQ R Ð R

.

.

.

Frontispiece

I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................................................. ix § I. T he Composition of the saga and its origins

.

ix-xxii

§ II. The Textual History of Víga-Glúms Saga

.

xxii-xxxii

§

h i.

Interpolations and Digressions

§ IV. Chronology

.

.

.

.

.

xxxii-xlii .

§ V. Manuscripts, editions, translations, & c .

V fG A -G L Ü M S S A G A

.

.

.

GENERAL N OTES .

.

xliii-li

.

li-lvi

. .

TE X T U A L N OTES

.

i .

52

88

.

A P P E N D I X E S ............................................................................ 91 • I. T h e fragment C

.

II. T h e Vatnshyma Fragments

A B B R E V IA T IO N S REFEREN CES

AND

G E N E A L O G IC A L T A B L E S

.

.

.

.

.

9*~4 95-103

B IB L IO G R A P H IC A L . . ( . .

. 1 0 4 108

G LO SSARY IN D E X E S

.

.

•

156

INTRODUCTION T H E C O M P O S IT IO N O F T H E S A G A A N D IT S O R IG IN S Víga-Glúms Saga ( VGL) is a biography. It has a single hero, whose life it follows from beginning to end. It is, thus, most closely comparable with Gisla Saga, Bjarnar Saga Hítdœlakappa, Grettis Saga, and Egils Saga, and contrasts with such sagas as Eyfbyggia, Vápnfirðinga and Vatnsdœla, whose subject is a group of persons or the inhabitants of one district during a specified period. In its present form, the saga falls roughly into six parts. The first tells of the hero’s father Eyjólfr and his grandfather Ingjaldr. T o Eyjólfr it attributes stereotyped adventures in Norway (Chs. I-IV ). The second part opens with a genealogical table (Ch. V), establishing the hero’s pedigree and his relationship with greater chieftains. Among his kinsmen are Óláfr Tryggvason, and the Esphcelingar, who are to be his adversaries in the story which follows. Subsequently, we read of the hero’s early years and of his youthful prowess in Norway (Ch. VI), where he has adventures which are a complement or conventional variation on those of his father, Eyjólfr. Together these first two parts (Chs. I-V I) may be said to form the introduction to the saga. The highly stylized form of their narrative suggests that they have been revised and worked over after the saga was originally composed.1 A t the beginning of Ch. V II Gliimr returns to his home in Iceland, bringing with him a cloak, a sword, and a spear, which he has received from his grandfather Vigfúss. These objects assure his good fortune. The following chapters (V II-X I) are 11 have analysed these viking stories in Leeds Studies in English, v. 74 ff., where VG L is compared with Svarfdcela. T h e conclusions there drawn require some modification.

X

INTRODUCTION

practically confined to Eyjafjgrðr, and describe the hero’s gradual rise to supremacy in that district. In Ch. V II the author at last comes to a subject congenial to his literary gifts, for the conventionalized viking motives of Parts I—II were not suited to his particular talents. At the end of Part III (Chs. X I-X II), the foster-brothers Arngrimr and Steinólfr are first introduced. Their lives thenceforward run through the story, forming a minor tragedy inextricably bound up with the main theme. The fourth part (Chs. X III-X V I) consists of two distinct stories, of which the first must be traced to a European fable, in some of its motives at least. The second has probably been inserted from some other text. Neither of these episodes has any place in the structure of the saga. As will be seen (§§ II and III) they were probably inserted after it was complete, whether by the author himself or, as is more likely, by a hand or hands later than his. The fourth part, therefore, should be disregarded if we wish to picture the saga in its original form. The fifth part begins with Ch. X V II, in which the narrative is resumed, and culminates in Chs. X X II-X X III with the battle of Hrísateigr. Glumr’s sons, Már and Vigfúss, are now* grown up. Vigfúss’s quarrelsome nature leads to further disputes in which his father is involved (Chs. X V H -X IX ). In Chs. X X X X I the foster-brothers appear once more, and Arngrimr slays Steinólfr. Steinólfr’s death is the immediate cause of the battle of Hrisateigr. This battle is the climax of the saga, and all the more important characters of the story are assembled at that point. Glúmr is victorious and defeats his lifelong enemies the Esphcelingar. He still possesses the cloak and the spear, which he had received from his grandfather. The sixth part of the saga begins with the story of Gliimr’s double oath (Ch. XXV). After swearing it he gives away his cloak and spear and, thereupon, his good fortune forsakes him. The ambiguity of his oath is exposed and, driven from his home, he is compelled to end his days on the outer reaches of Eyjafjgrðr. Chs. X X V II-X X V III fall somewhat outside the narrative. Ch. X X V II tells how Glúmr, now bereft of good fortune,

CO M P O S I T I O N OF THE SAGA

xi

attempts to recover his rights. The last chapter describes how with his sword hidden under his cloak, he makes a last attempt to take revenge on his enemies Guðmundr riki and Einarr Þveræingr. He is, by this time, old and blind, but his spirit is unbroken. The final sentences relate Ghimr’s conversion to Christianity and his death. An outstanding feature of VGL is the belief in personal destiny (sometimes called hamingja) , 1 which in this saga is com­ bined with the belief in magical power with which certain objects may be endowed.12 Glúmr’s welfare depends directly on his cloak, sword, and spear, which may be said to carry the good fortunes of his family. From the day "when he receives them from his maternal grandfather Vigfuss his security and supre­ macy are assured. His good fortune thus comes to him from his mother’s family, and might be called ættargipt.34 In one passage this ættargipt is personified as Vigfúss’s guardian spirit, de­ scribed as a woman of gigantic stature. On the death of her ward in Norway, she comes to Þverá to guide the destinies of G lu m r .4 Closely associated with the belief in personal or family destiny, and sometimes difficult to distinguish from it, is the belief in impersonal fate (called urðr, skgp, ørlgg) . 5 Personal destiny and family fortune were both thought to be subject to fate, as is clearly shown in this saga. When Vigfuss gives the three talismans to Glümr, he seems already to know that his grandson will one day part with them, and that then his good fortune will leave him (i 1/23-4). The belief in predetermined catastrophe is evident in many passages, and appears to dominate the saga throughout. When Þorkell hávi is driven from the 1 Cf. J. de Vries, Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte (Grundriss xii, 1935-7), ü, §§ 289-92. 2 Cf. ibid., ii, passim, especially §§ 53-5. 3 Cf. ibid., ii, passim, especially §§ 73-6. 4 It is remarkable that the word used for ‘guardian spirit* in this passage is hamingja instead of the more regular fylgja. See 15/29 and note, and refer­ ences given there. 5 On the distinction between the two conceptions, urðr and hamingja, often confused in the sources, see J. de Vries, op. cit.,§ 145. Urdr might be described as an external force, hamingja as the attribute of an individual or a family.

xii

INTRODUCTION

lands of Þverá, he goes into the temple of Freyr and learns the omens (17/19-28), and from that moment he knows that, sooner or later, Glúmr will be driven from his home, no less disgraced than he. Glumr has a symbolical dream before the battle of Hrísateigr (Ch. XXI), and the feud between the foster-brothers Arngrimr and Steinólfr had already been foretold in their child­ hood by the wise woman Oddbjgrg (Ch. XII). Similarly the death of Bárðr Hallason was known beforehand to his wife Una from a vision which she saw in a trance (31 '12-16). An im­ portant part in this saga is played by the god Freyr, who is an enemy of Glúmr and eventually contributes to his downfall (Ch. X X V I).1 But the god himself is subject to fate, for he is powerless against Glúmr, so long as Glúmr keeps his cloak, spear, and sword and is protected by his hamingja. The ultimate decision between Glumr and Freyr rests, therefore, with fate. Briefly it might be said that Ghimr’s good fortune comes to him from his hamingja, but that the hamingja works only within the limits of external fate.z The contrast between the sagas of Hrafnkell and Víga-Glúmr is at this point of some interest. They differ fundamentally in theme and emphasis, although it may be held that their views of life and fortune are not wholly divergent. Hrafnkels Saga is primarily concerned to depict invincible character and will. It is because Hrafnkell is in character superior to his enemy, and by nature a chieftain, that he inevitably triumphs over Sámr in the end. Yet the power of fate is not wholly forgotten. VGL is primarily concerned with one man’s fortune; yet his ultimate defeat has an element of justice in relation to his character. He is cunning and unscrupulous; his fall is closely connected with his guileful oath. None the less, the notion of a fate or luck that is distinct from worth or character is predominant in the story of 1 T h e importance of the cult of Freyr in VG L is discussed in greater detail below. See pp. xiv ff. 1 In its view of fate VGL should be compared to Grt'ttis Saga and Gisla Saga. T h e belief in family destiny is much emphasized in Vatmdoela Sa ga ; cf. W. II. Vogt's remarks in his introduction to Vatnsdœla (Alttwrdische Saga-Bibliothek, 16, Halle, 1921), pp. Ixxiv-lxxvi.

C O M P O S I T I O N OF THE SAGA

xiii

Glúmr. The luck is actually attached to exterior possessions: his cloak, sword, and spear. It has been suggested that these objects are to be associated with the cult of Óðinn; for the spear was, as is well known, his especial weapon, and the cloak his favourite garb.1 But these points are, of course, insufficient in themselves to establish the connexion with Öðinn, a god for whose cult there is little evidence at all in Iceland: neither place-names nor medieval writings preserve any unquestionable record of his worship in that land, though the cults of other gods, particularly those of Þórr and Freyr, are well attested. Nevertheless, though Óðinn is nowhere named in the text, there are several indications which seem to support the assumption of a connexion between Óðinn and the fortunes of Glumr. In the heat of an undecided battle Ghimr addresses his son Vigfuss (coming disguised and cloaked into the fray) by the curious name Þundarbenda (Ch. X X I I I ; see note 39/35), whereupon the tide turns in his favour. This name can hardly be unconnected with Þundr, a common by-name of Óðinn, and it appears to mean ‘Sign of Óðinn*.2 As such Glúmr may originally have been represented as hailing his son, who came to his aid at a critical moment. The saga asserts that Þundarbenda was the name of one of Glumr’s thralls, whom he pretended to recognize in the hooded man, so that others should not identify Vigfuss. This has every appearance of an explana­ tion invented later, when the name had become obscure. But even if it were true, we should still have an Odinic name, probably given by Glúmr himself, associated with his house­ hold. There is evidence that Glúmr was himself an adherent of the unscrupulous pagan philosophy expressed in the Odinic Hávamál, better described as a mystical atheism than a faith. This philosophy is never more clearly perceived than when Ghimr seeks to escape the consequences of slaying his enemy Þorvaldr by swearing an ambiguous oath on the holy ring 1 Cf. A . Holtsmark, ‘ Vitazgjafi * in M aal og Minne, 1933, pp. 111 f f .; and m y paper in Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section, iii. vi, pp. 317 ff. 2 Cf. Magnus Olsen, M aal og Minne, 1934, pp. 92 ff.

xiv

IN T R O D U C T I O N

(Ch. X X V ).1 It has been suggested that the Odinic cult had predominated in the family of Gliimr’s maternal grandfather, the viking Vigfiiss á Vors, and had descended to him from them, for the saga lays much stress on his devotion to his mother and her kinsmen.2 Self-seeking and ambitious, Gliimr is heedless of the beliefs of his paternal ancestors, and there is little doubt that Freyr had been their favourite god.3 Landnámabók relates that when Ingjaldr, the grandfather of Viga-Gliimr, received the lands of Þverá from his father Helgi enn magri he built a temple beside his home. This temple was, according to V G l.y dedicated to Freyr.-* Beneath it lay the ever fertile cornfield Vitazgjafi under the watchful eye of the god. Vitazgjafi was probably no less sacred to the men of Eyjafjgrðr than Helgafell had been to the Þórsnesingar, yet it was on that spot that Glúmr chose to slay his enemy Sigmundr. Thereupon, Sigmundr’s father Þorkell entered the temple of Freyr, invoking the god’s anger upon Gliimr. So long as he retains his cloak and spear, Gliimr is in­ vulnerable, but later Freyr strikes, and the hero is ignominiously driven from his lands. The story might be regarded, then, as one of a clash between religious cults. While a youth in Norway Gliimr seems to have discarded the beliefs of his Icelandic ancestors and of the people of Eyjafjgrðr and to have followed the traditions of his mother’s family. In a similar way Egill Skalla-Grimsson appears to have been drawn from allegiance to Þórr, the god of farmers and peasants, to the aristocratic viking deity Öðinn. From Óðinn Egill derived his gift of poetry.5 It is thus quite possible that Gliimr 1 Cf. Hdvamdl n o : Baugeið óðinn hygg ek at unnit hafi: hvat skal hans tryggðom trúa ? See note on 44/32. 2 Cf. A. Holtsmark, op. cit., p. 132. i I have discussed the cult of Freyr among Glúmr’s ancestors in some detail in my paper, ‘ The Cult of Freyr in the Evening of Paganism* in Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society%Literary and Historical Section, iii. vi, pp. 317 ff« See particularly pp. 330-3 of that work. 4 See notes on 1/1 and 8/35 and references given. 4 Cf. Sigurftur Nordal, 4Átrúnaður Egils Skalla-Grimssonar * in Skirnirt xcviii, 1924, pp. 145 ff.

CO M P O S I T I O N OF THE SAG A

xv

was influenced by the Odinic cult and ethics, and that this was originally recognized in traditions concerning him, though the author of VGL no longer recognized the god as a personal influence, and in his saga it is impersonal fate and hamingja that guide the hero’s career. The favour of fate was stronger even than the god Freyr, but when that favour was withdrawn, Glúmr had no longer power to stand against the god. If these suggestions are accepted, it is clear that the theme and motives on which the saga is based have been modified in the course of tradition, and its historical value is consequently impaired. None the less, the author was a man skilled in his art; the structure of his story is throughout logical and coherent. If we set aside Chs. X III-X V I, we see that one episode leads almost of necessity to another. If criticism has any fault to find, it is perhaps that the structure is a little too rigid, and the characters in consequence a little stiffened and conventionalized. The merits of VGL are most clearly perceived when it is compared with the Reykdcela Sagay a saga with which it is closely associated. It is evident that the author of the Reykdcela Saga gathered together the traditions of the district of Reykjadalr and recorded them in a painstaking manner. He was an anti­ quarian^ and his object was historical truth. But if historically less scrupulous and curious than the author of Reykdala, the author of VGL had a better artistic sense. In contrast with his work, Reykdcela Saga is formless and far less vivid. This is not, of course, to assert that VGL is a work of fiction. Its author’s primary purpose was perhaps artistic, but he was using genuine historical sources. On such sources this saga was based, as were most of the family sagas. In consequence VGL is quite unlike the weak, effeminate Viglundar Saga, or the boisterous, lying Króka-Refs Saga; and differs widely from Hrafnkels Saga, a work in which artistic creation and invention appear to have mastered history.1 If VGL is examined as an historical source, 1 O n the traditions of Hrafnkels Saga, I refer to a paper by S. Nordal, to be published shortly; cf. E. V. Gordon's paper in Medium Ævum, viii, Oxford, 1939, pp. 1-32 . On the development of the saga literature from history to fiction, see fslenzk Fornrit, ii, Reykjavik, 1933, pp. lxi-ii.

xvi

INTRODUCTION

it will be found to contain much valuable information. What this saga has to tell of the worship of Freyr, of the belief in guardian spirits or in life after death is largely confirmed by mythological investigation.1 Its legal statements also seem generally to be based on sound tradition, even though they conflict in a few instances2 with other records. The genealogies given in VGL deviate considerably from those of other sources;3 yet there is a general agreement between them, and it need not be questioned that the genealogies traced in this saga have an historical basis, though they have been somewhat corrupted. The disagreement between VGL and Landnámabók is, how­ ever, so great that it is improbable that one text has drawn on the other. The very few instances in which their verbal agree­ ment is comparatively close may well be derived from some common source.4 As typical examples of discrepancy, it may be mentioned that the daughter of Þorkell hávi, whom VGL calls Hallfríðr, is known as Arndis in Landnámabók; while the Arnórr rauðkinnr of the saga is given the nickname rauðæingr in Landnámabók \ and the saga’s Hlenni Qrnólfsson is in Landnámabók called Ormsson.5 The opening genealogy of Ch. V shows serious disagreement with Landnámabók, and for detailed comparison the reader may consult the General Notes in this edition. It should be added that, in a few instances, the Hauksbók recen­ sion of Landnáma shows agreement with VGL not found in Sturlubók. In one passage Hauksbók gives together the names of the sons of Eyjólfr Ingjaldsson: Vigfúss, Viga-Gliimr, and Þorsteinn.6 The last named is unknown to Sturlubók, while Vigfúss is mentioned in that text only as the husband of Arndis (Hallfridr).7 It is even more striking to note that Hauksbók alludes by name to the cornfield Vitazgjafi, while Sturlubók says 1 See notes on 15/29, 17/22, 3 1/14 -15 , &c., and references there. 2 See notes on 24/24, 43/18, 43/34* 48/19-20, 48/23, 8cc. 3 See General Notes passim, particularly 7/34 ff., 8/9-10.

4 e.«. 8/21 -24, cf. Landnámabók (1000), pp. 79 lines 8-10 and 196 lines 25-8. See further notes ad loc. 5 See notes on 8/9-10, 18/30-1, 18/12. * See 8/5, note. 7 See 8/9-10, note.

C O M P O S I T I O N OF THE SAG A

xvii

merely á akrinum. 1 There is not, however, sufficient evidence to say that Haukr knew VGL and made use of it. Finally it may be noted that there are many characters in the saga who, though unknown to Landnámabók, are mentioned in other works. There are few whose identity cannot be established, or who cannot be assigned to known families.2 The initial passages of the genealogy given in Ch. V show a certain affinity with the Konunga Spgur.3 Moreover, in his latter years, when he was old and blind, Glumr reminds us a little of King Hrcerekr.4 Hrœrekr, too, was blind at the end of his life, for Óláfr helgi had put out his eyes and robbed him of his dominions. Nevertheless, his spirit unbroken, he was often jovial and convivial, drinking with Óláfr’s men, just as Glumr would gladly drink with Guðmundr and Einarr (Ch. X X V III). Yet, like Glúmr, Hrœrekr bided his time, and when his chance came, he drew a dagger and tried to stab King Óláfr.5 It is a remarkable coincidence that Hrcerekr later ended his days not far from the place where Glumr died. For it is said that he is the only King who rests in Iceland, and that he died at Kálfskinn, scarcely more than twelve miles from Fornhagi, where Glumr was buried. It is possible, then, that there is some relationship between VGL and the Konunga Spgur, but the resemblances are insufficient to prove a direct influence of these sagas in their extant form upon VGL, and must be attributed rather to some indirect contact. Though the author of VGL probably used written documents in constructing his work, it cannot be shown what these docu­ ments were. Most probably early genealogical writings were 1 See 12/24, note; cf. Landnámabók, Copenhagen, 1900, pp. 85 and 201. 2 For examples see 8/11, 8/24, 18/12 ff., &c., and notes ad loc. 3 See notes to 7/34 ff. 4 On his life see particularly Heimskringla, ed. Finnur Jónsson, Copen­ hagen, 19 1 1, ÓL Helg., chs 7 4 -5 , 8 1 -5 ; Flateyjarbók, ii, Oslo, 1860-8, pp. 64-6, 85-91. 5 There is another incident in the story of Hrcerekr, hardly less strongly re­ miniscent of V G L A t his master’s instigation Hrcerckr’s attendant attempted to assassinate K ing óláfr. Flaíeyjarbók (ii. 85) says of him: sveinrtinn . . . hafði brugdit sax undir skikkju sinni, just as the present saga says of G lúm r: harm hafdi sax brugðit undir skikkju (51/12).

xviii

INTRODUCTION

consulted, and it can hardly be disputed that in its structure VGL has been influenced by older family sagas. In structure and in some of its motives VGL has a certain resemblance to Egils Saga : 1 both sagas trace the life of a vigorous hero from childhood to an inactive old age and death. A resemblance of this kind, however, shows nothing more than that the two works are of one class or ‘school’. It is evident, then, that between VGL and other works that have come down to us the relationship is distant and indirect, and indeed the saga contains much material for which it is hard to account from written sources. In all probability unwritten records played no less a part in the composition of the story than written ones; but in what form these oral records reached the author of the saga cannot be clearly determined. Probably they were preserved to some extent in verse, which by reason of its form was less easily corrupted than prose sayings or popular tales. But though some of them are certainly genuine, the verses in this saga are few. It is likely, therefore, that the author had largely to rely on unwritten, formless traditions and on popular sayings about the life of Víga-Glúmr. An example of popular tradition of this sort may be seen in the mál manna, to which the author alludes at the end of his work (Ch. X X V III, 51 21). The persistence and coherence of these traditions appear all the more remarkable when it is considered that the period which elapsed between the death of the hero and the composition of the saga can hardly have been less than two hundred years. Probably some of them were preserved among the descendants of Víga-Glúmr and of people concerned with his life,2 but it is unlikely that they would survive in memory far from the district of Eyjafjgrðr. With this district, the home of its hero, the story is closely connected, even in minor topographical details.3 So 1 It should be noted that Egils Saga, whether it is the work of Snorri Sturluson or not, is intimately related with the Kottunga Spgur, both in subject and in style. 2 See below, p. xlix and footnote 1. 3 There are a few small topographical errors, but they may be attributed to copyists and editors; e.g. Laugardalr (31 30), Middrdalr (26 11 12), Knarrarvad (38/28). See notes ad loc.

C O M P O S I T I O N OF THE SAGA

xix

important is the local geography to the story that a modern reader will find it hard to follow without a knowledge of Eyjafjgrðr; and a map is, at any rate, indispensable. If the saga was written in EyjafjQrðr, there is no more likely place for its origin than Þverá, which in the tenth century had been Gliimr’s property. At the time when VGL was written, Þverá was the site of a Benedictine monastery which had been founded in 1155,1 and it was known as Munkaþverá, a name which is still preserved. Among the first of its abbots was Nikolás, who died about 1159,2 and was remembered as a poet, a traveller, and a scholar. It may be conjectured that this man established literary and studious interests in the monastery of Þverá, which would continue for many years after his death. It remains to consider the date when VGL was composed. E. Mogk in the first edition of his literary history held that it must have been composed about 1240, though latef he discarded this opinion, and suggested that it was written before the end of the twelfth century.3 Finnur Jónsson ascribed the saga to the beginning of the thirteenth century or about 1200, arguing that its pithy, epigrammatic style was evidence for this early date.4 But arguments founded on style are notoriously dangerous in estimating dates and, as will be seen (§ II), the terse style in which the saga is preserved probably comes not from the author, but from a later editor. And, in fact, the compressed pithy style is characteristic of the latter decades rather than the beginning of the thirteenth century. The saga itself tells us nothing of its date. It does not quote medieval authorities, as many sagas do, nor does it show the unquestionable influence of other work. Nor can the influence 1 Cf. Janus Jónsson, ‘ U m Klaustrin á íslandi’ in Tímarit, viii. 200 f f .; also Bishop Jón Helgason’s Islands Kirke, Copenhagen, 1925, pp. 125-6. 2 On his life and work see F. Paasche, Kristendom og Kvad, Oslo, 1914, pp. 91 ff.; Finnur Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldislandske Litteraturs Historie, cd. 2, Copenhagen, 1920-24, ii. 1 13-14. 3 See Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, ed. i, 1893, ii. i, p. 12 1; cf. op. cit., ed. 2, 1904, ii. 762. 4 Den oldnorske og oldislandske Litteraturs Historie, ed. 2, ii. 488; Den islandske Litteraturs Historie, Copenhagen, 1907, p. 257.

XX

INTRODUCTION

of VGL on later writing be demonstrated. It might perhaps be suggested that VGL is an earlier work than Ljósvetninga Saga and was known to its author. In one passage Ljósvetninga Saga refers to Þórðr Hrafnsson, and says that he is ‘much mentioned in the Esphœlinga Saga’ . 1 It is possible that Esphœlinga Saga is an old though inapt name for VGL, in which Þórðr is frequently mentioned. But this is only an unproved guess. If a date for VGL is sought, it is more profitable to consider its construction and motives and to compare them with those of other sagas. Like other forms of art, the family saga had primitive beginnings; it developed, culminated, and sub­ sequently declined. These successive stages have long been recognized by some scholars, but it is only in comparatively recent years that attempts have been made to co-ordinate them and to establish a system according to which sagas may be dated by their construction and motives.12 The whole process of the saga’s development, from the first stages to the decline, occupied a remarkably short period, as might be expected in so small a community as that of Iceland. It is argued that no family saga was written before about 1200,3 though by 1250 this branch of Icelandic literature had reached its climax. Consequently if two sagas are compared, it is sometimes possible to say, in default of more positive evidence, that one appears to be older than the other. Arguments of this kind can rarely be conclusive, for 1 Ljósx'Ctninga Saga in fslenzkar Form rignr, i, Copenhagen, 1S80, p. 251. 2 For an illuminating discussion of the general problems of dating the family sagas, see Björn M . Ólsen in Saftt til Srig14 islands, \i. 5 b, Reykjavik, 1937-8, particularly pp. 1-9 . T h is work consists of a series o f lectures delivered in Reykjavik in the years 1911 17, and published posthumously. T h e methods of dating mentioned abo\e arc applied in an interesting way by S. Nordal to lijarnar Saga Hitda'lakappa and Heirianaga Saga; sec fslewsk Fornrity iii, Reykjavik, 1938, pp. lxxxix-xcv and cxxxiv-cxliv. 3 It is not, of course, disputed that a number of Konunga SQgur were written before 1200, e.g. The Oldest Saga of Óldfr helgt (ct. S. Nordal, Om O la f den Helliges Saga, Copenhagen, 1014, pp. 48 55), Oddr Snorrason's Saga Öldfs Tryggvasonar (ed. Finnur Jónsson, Copenhagen, 1032), parts of Srerris Saga (ed. (i. Indrebo, Oslo, 1020), Firikr Oddsson's Hryggjarstykki (cf. Finnur Jonsson, Den oldnorske og oldtshtndske Litteraturs Historic, ed. 2, ii. 370-5), &c., in addition to certain lives o f saints and other saga-like writings in Icelandic and Latin.

C O M P O S I T I O N OF THE SA GA

xxi

individual authors may be old-fashioned, while others may be in advance of their time. As a general rule, however, it may be said that the earlier sagas rely more exclusively on unwritten tradition, while the later ones may be based on written work. At the same time the influence of foreign literature grows ever stronger as time goes on. The earliest sagas show a certain crudity in artistic construction and a technique not yet fully developed. Bjarnar Saga Hitdœlakappa may be cited as a primitive saga. Laxdœla Saga may be cited as a saga in which the art of construction has reached its highest point. In that saga the old school meets the new; like the older sagas Laxdœla is based mainly on traditions handed down orally and in writing since the age of Settlement, but it is enriched by the influence of the continental romance and its Scandinavian offspring the Riddara Saga.1 It was such influences as these which caused the decline of the family saga during the second half of the thirteenth century, and their effects are to be seen even more clearly in Gunnlaugs Saga, Viglundar Saga, and parts of Grettis Saga. 12 VGL appears to fall between Bjarnar Saga and Laxdcela\ though structurally far more advanced than Bjarnar Saga, it has not the polish of Laxdoela, nor does it show signs of post-classical taste. Though a lesser work, VGL is in structure most closely comparable with Egils Saga. It is not a primitive saga, and it is evident that the author was not only talented but trained in his art: he had read other sagas and studied their form. It is often said that the oldest family saga preserved is Heiðar1 Characteristic o f Laxdœla Saga, as of the Riddara Spgur, is its interest in outward appearance, shown e.g. in the descriptions of the assailants o f H elgi Harðbeinsson (ch. 63), of the eldhtis at Hjarðarholt (ch. 29), o f Óláfr's shield (var dregit d leó með guilt, ch. 21), of Dolli’s shield (d dreginn riddari tried gulli, ch. 77), of Kjartan’s hair (ch. 28) and of G uðrún’s dress. T h e promi­ nence given to personal emotions and love, which are generally suppressed in the earlier sagas, is also a noticeable feature o f Laxdoela, particularly in the characters of Guðrún and Hrefna. C f. Einar 01 . Sveinsson, fslenzk Fornrit, v, Reykjavik, 1934, Introduction, §§ I and II. 2 T h e influence of continental romance is particularly noticeable in the so-called Spesar Þáttr o f Grettis Saga; cf. R. C. Boer’s remarks in his intro­ duction to Grettis Saga (Altnordische Saga-Bibliothek, 8, Halle, 1900), §§ 9 -10 and Guðni Jónsson in Islenzk Fornrit, vii, Reykjavik, 1936, pp. lv-lvii.

xxii

INTRODUCTION

viga Saga. 1 This is a truly primitive work; it gives the impres­ sion that its author was an innovator and that he did not know of other sagas on which to model his form. Heiðarviga Saga may be taken, then, as the starting-point and Laxdœla as the culmina­ tion of the family saga. It has been shown that Heiðarviga Saga was most probably composed about 1200,2 the period in which it is estimated that the composition of the family sagas began. There is little doubt that Laxdoela Saga was written about the middle of the thirteenth century or even a little earlier.3 Bjarnar Saga Hítdœlakappa, though primitive, is more highly developed than Heiðarvíga Saga, and may be assumed to have been written ten or fifteen years later.* VGL is technically more advanced than Bjarnar Saga, and in structure it is most similar to Egils Saga. In his edition of Egils Saga, S. Nordal argues that it was written after 1220, but before 1235.5 It is probable that VGL was written at a similar period, or approximately between 1230 and 1240. There is no evidence of a more con­ clusive kind for the dating of VGL We must remain content with the probability that it is a saga older than Laxdcela, but younger than Bjarnar Saga Hítdœlakappa. In that case it was probably written before the middle of the .thirteenth century, and is among the earlier family sagas. §

ii

T H E T E X T U A L H IS T O R Y O F V ÍG A -G L Ú M S S A G A 6 VGL is preserved in complete form only in one early manuscript. This is the codex Mpðruvallabók (A/.) said to have been written about the middle of the fourteenth century. In addition, some fragments of the saga are found in Vatnshyrna (I\) and in A.M . 1 Cf. Jón Helgason, Norrøn Litteraturhistorie, Copenhagen, 1034, p. 170. 2 C f. S. Nordal, fslenzk Fornrit, iii, pp. cxxxiv-cxliv. 3 C f. Einar 01. Sveinsson, ibid., \, pp. xxiii ff. 4 C f. S. Nordal, ibid., iii, pp. lxxxix ff. 5 Cf. ibid., ii, p. xciii. 6 I ha\e discussed the subject of this section in rather greater detail in the Transuet ions of the Philological Society, 1036, pp. 54 if. In some instances the conclusions of that paper are here somewhat modified, and in others they are strengthened by additional evidence.

TEX TU A L HISTORY

xxiii

445 c, 4to (C.), both of which are ascribed to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century.1 Those who read the saga according to M. seem generally to agree that it has been considerably altered since it left its author’s hand. Some critics have maintained that the text has been ex­ panded,2 and there is, indeed, much to recommend this view, for expansion by interpolation, at any rate, has undoubtedly occurred (see § III). The style of VGl. shows generally a certain smoothness and polish, yet it has some deficiencies. While in some passages it may be called epigrammatic, in others it becomes elliptical to the point of obscurity. In Ch. V II (13/20-1), for instance, Ástríðr speaks to her son as follows: en ek hefi eigi fráleik til at reka i brott, en verkmenn at vinnu. In the same chapter (12/1719) Þorsteinn says to Ástríðr: sýnisk mér þat ráð, ef þessir menn halda upp ráði þínu, at vér eigim hlut i fébótum, at þeim komi við. Ch. V begins with a genealogy, in which so many names are contained in so small a space that it is difficult to distinguish one family from another, and the transition is abrupt from mythical heroes of a legendary era to historical persons of the tenth century. So much for the first impression. A closer examination reveals the special interest and importance to criticism of Ch. X V I. This chapter tells of the feud between Gliimr and VigaSkúta, better known as hero of the Reykdoela Saga, and it falls outside the plan of the story. It breaks the sequence of events and if extracted it would leave no trace. Moreover, if it is com­ pared with the rest of the text, Ch. X VI shows certain differ­ ences of style. In the first place it is noticeable that here the prefix Viga- is often applied to the hero, and he is called VigaGlúmr. This prefix is applied to him in other sources, though 1 See p. li, below. 2 e.g. E. M ogk, Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, ed. 2, ii. 762. A n opinion which may at first sight appear contrary to this is expressed by W. P. Ker. Writing of VGl. in Epic and Romance (London, 1922, p. 194) he says that in its existing form it appears to be carelessly put together or perhaps abridged from a fuller version. Ker gives no evidence and his opinion seems to be based on the general impression which the saga makes.

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

not in the remainder of this saga.1 C. Lotspeich,2 who studied this chapter some thirty years ago, also remarked on certain syn­ tactical peculiarities. For instance, in Ch. X V I, the historic present tense is used nearly three times as frequently as it is in other parts of the saga, and the use of direct speech is also abnormally frequent in this passage. This stylistic contrast naturally leads to the suspicion that the Skútu Þáttr, as Ch. X V I may be called, did not belong to the saga in its original form, and that it is not the work of the same author as the bulk of the text. Even if the chapter were found only in VGl.y this would be a reasonable assumption, but it is further supported by the presence of a closely similar passage in Ch. X X V I of the Reykdoela Saga (/?.).3 The explanation of these facts which first occurs to one is that a scribe merely copied the þáttr from R . into V G l. This may indeed be the true explanation. The more loose construction of /?. does not im­ mediately reveal this passage as an interpolation (w hether made by the author or another); but a closer examination brings to light evidence which suggests that it w as not, in fact, the work of the author of that saga. As was noted above, in Ch. X V I of VGL the historic present is used nearly three times as frequently as it is elsew here in that saga. In the corresponding passage of /?. the historic present occurs even more frequently.4 Still more remarkable is the abundance of direct speech in Ch. X X V I of R., of which it forms about two-fifths, though in other chapters the author of /?. tends to avoid direct speech, and it forms only a small 1 I disregard the manuscript heading to the saga: Hér hefr I Iga-Glums spgu. 2 Zur Viga-Glúms- und Reykdorvaldr i Ilaga murdered his kins­ man (brœdrmigr) Grímr á Kálfskinni. As in VGl.y (ílúmr and his son, Már, defended the murderer (i.e. Þorvaldr), who was12 1 Lndn. 74. 2 Landnámabóky Mciabók, cd. Finnur Jónssdn, Copenhagen, ig 2 i, p. n o .

IN T E R P O L A T IO N S A N D D IG R E S S IO N S

xli

prosecuted by Einarr ’Þveræingr. Both the murdered man (Grimr) and the murderer are said in Mel. to be grandsons of Narfi Arnarson, who is associated with Narfasker. As in the other versions of Lndn., the wife of Narfi is called Ülfheiör. As in Stb., the father of Ulfheiðr is Ingjaldr ór Gniipufelli but, as in Hkb.y this Ingjaldr is said to be a son of Helgi enn magri. On this point, therefore, M el. seems to have blended the accounts of Stb. and of Hkb. As a result it is confused and contradic­ tory, for Ingjaldr ór Gnúpufelli was not a son of Helgi enn magri. In Mel., therefore, Þorvaldr i Haga is not the murdered man but the murderer. The place of the murdered man is taken by Grimr Helgason á Kálfskinni. Strangely enough, Grimr is said in M el. to be married to Helga Þórðardóttir frá StokkahlQÖum Hrafnssonar, just as the murdered Þorvaldr was in VGl. Eggert Ó. Brim,1 writing with much learning but with less judgement, has attempted to reconcile the two versions of this story. On the whole he prefers the account given in Mel., and from it he seeks to reconstruct the story and to explain the confusion in VGl. Brim’s view is as follows: Ülfheiör Ingjaldsdóttir frá Þverá did not marry Hriseyjar-Narfi, for he would have been too young, but Narfi Arnarson; Hriseyjar-Narfi probably married Ülfheiör Ingjaldsdóttir ór Gniipufelli. In this supposi­ tion Brim contradicts not only V G l., but also Stb., probably the most reliable version of Lndn. preserved. Nor is the hypothesis in full accord with Mel. For according to Mel. Ülfheiör is the daughter of Ingjaldr ór Gniipufelli, though Ingjaldr ór Gniipufelli is said there to be the son of Helgi enn magri. In other respects Brim considers the story told in Mel. to be correct. From confusion of the two men called Narfi he derives the corrupt version of the story told in VGl. The solution is worked out in great detail, but there is little to be gained from it. If we accept it, we are still faced with the coincidence that two women called Ülfheiör Ingjaldsdóttir both married men 1 Timarit hins íslenzka bókmentafélags, iii, 1882, pp. 100-12.

xlii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

called Narfi. Brim, moreover, hardly attempts to estimate the relative value of VGl. and the three versions of Lndn. In many points of detail Brim is prepared to accept VGL> so long as it does not conflict with Mel. or with his own hypothesis. Thus, he believes that the brothers Eyjólfr, Klœngr, Þorbrandr, and Þorvaldr really did exist. They must, however, have been sons of Ülfheiör ór Gniipufelli, not of Ülfheiör frá Þverá, as the saga has it. Because he believed them to be sons of Ülfheiör frá Þverá, the author of VGL attributed the murder to one of them. Against such arguments it must be asserted that the story told in VGL is in itself consistent and logical. If Klcengr was a son of Ülfheiör frá Þverá, it was only natural that Glúmr should defend him. It was also natural that he should be hostile to the murdered Þorvaldr. Þorvaldr’s wife, Helga, was a daughter of Vigdis Þórisdóttir á Espihóli. Before her marriage with Þórðr Vigdis had been the wife of Sigmundr Þorkelsson, whom Glumr slew. This story conflicts only trivially with Hkb., and agrees with Stb. While VGL tells us already in Ch. V that Hriseyjar-Narfi was married to Ülfheiör íngjaldsdóttir frá Þverá, Stb. tells us, no less plainly, that Narfi Arnarson was married to Ülfheiör Ingjaldsdóttir ór Gniipufelli. It is rash to suppose on so little evidence that the opposite was the case. It is not improbable that the story told in Ch. X X V II of VGL contains historical errors. The earliest versions of Lndn. may also be inaccurate. Though we may justly hold these early sources in some suspicion, it is too much to suppose that we can correct them from a compilation of the seventeenth century', of whose traditions we know little or nothing.1 We cannot say from what source the compiler of Mel. took his story', nor whether it had been corrupted from VGL in an attempt at im­ provement or influenced by a scribal error in Hkb. We have no alternative but to reject the story told in Mel. on such evidence as has been produced. 1 On Mel. see Finnur Jónsson, Lambuinuibók, i (>21 , Introduction. His conclusions mi^ht be somewhat modified. See also Den oklnorske (# oldislandske Litteraturs Historie>ed. 2, ii. 488.

CHRONOLOGY

xliii

§IV CH RO N O LO GY I n dealing with a literary monument such as Víga-Glúms Saga, even if we doubt the historical truth of the incidents recounted, it is important to discover what historical period and what chronological relation between events was in the mind of the author. The present saga contains two direct references to the date of its events, and the first of them is inserted in such a way that it can be intended only as a guide for the reader’s enlightenment. It is found in Ch. II, where it is said that when Eyjólfr, the father of Glúmr, came to Norway, Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri was ruler there.1 The only other direct reference to the date is made in the last chapter. It is related there that Glúmr was baptized when Christianity came to Iceland, that he lived for three winters more, and was confirmed on his deathbed by Bishop Kolr. The saga would seem* therefore, to cover a period from the reign of Håkon until the years when Bishop Kolr was in Ice­ land, or at least until three years after Christianity was intro­ duced. Between these two dates fall the latter days of Ingjaldr, some part of the life of his son Eyjólfr, Gliimr’s early years, his manhood, decline, and death. Skilfully interwoven with the main theme is the story of the foster-brothers, Arngrimr and Steinólfr. They are mentioned first in Chaps. X I-X II, but do not reappear until Chs. X X -X X I, where Arngrimr slays Steinólfr. Steinólfr’s untimely death leads inevitably to the battle of Hrísateigr (Chs. X X II-III). That battle is the climax of the saga. At that point Vigfúss Víga-Glúmsson emerges from hiding, and all the more important characters of the story are assembled. The battle of Hrisateigr is followed by Glumr’s expulsion from the district of his home, the Klcengr episode (XXVII), and the hero’s attempt to regain his rights at the 1 T h is is most probably the correct interpretation. T h e textual difficulty should, however, be noted. See textual note 2/35*

xliv

I N T R O D U C T IO N

Vgðlaþing. The last chapter tells of Glúmr’s conversion to Christianity and his death* by that time an old man and blind. Concurrent with Glumr’s decline, and not unimportant for our story, is the rise to power of the brothers Guðmundr riki and Einarr Þveræingr. T o the early scholars a simple system of chronology seemed applicable to this saga. Old Icelandic sources state that in 933-5 Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri came to Norway and that the Christian Faith was legally adopted in Iceland in the year 1000. Eyjólfr’s voyage to Norway must, therefore, have taken place after 933, and Glúmr’s death about 1003.1 But it can be seen at once that an attempt to crush all the events related in the saga between these two dates causes the story to proceed with a rapidity which is strained and uncon­ vincing. If fully worked out, the chronology leads to confusion. It is, moreover, hardly compatible with other statements con­ tained in the annals and early Icelandic records. The annals state that in the year 943-4 Glúmr slew’ Sigmundr on the cornfield.2 If the foregoing system of chronology is adopted, this date is impossible, for Glúmr would then have been no more than a child in arms. Similarly, the annals date the battle of Hrisateigr 983 (984).3 This agrees well with the date which they assign to the death of Sigmundr, but cannot be reconciled with the old chronology. There is, moreover, reason to believe that Bishop Kolr did not reach Iceland until many years after the Conversion. If this is so, the saga must be at fault in its assertion that Glúmr was baptized w hen Christianity came to Iceland, that he lived for three winters more and was confirmed on his deathbed by Bishop Kolr (X X VIII). From such considerations it becomes plain that none of the events related in the saga can be dated with any certainty. It was noted that in Ch. II the saga states that Kyjólfr came to 1 Cf. Gudbrandur Vigfusson, Cm timatal i islvndinga s!*um, Copenhagen,

1855» PP- 394 ff2 See Islandske Annaler, ed. G . Storm, Christiania, 1888, index under Víga-Glúmr and Sigmundr Þorkelsson. 3 See Islandske Annaler, index under Risateigr.

CHRONOLOGY

xlv

Norway in the reign of Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri, and that this statement was inserted in such a way that it could be intended only to establish the date of the event. Accordingly, full atten­ tion should be given to it, and it should not be discarded without consideration. Now the annals state that Håkon came to Nor­ way in 933—5, and it is said that he reigned for 26-7 years. Similar dates are given, or can be deduced from Theodricus, Historia Norvegiae, Agrip, Snorri, and other sources. But un­ fortunately the dates which early Norse historians apply to the reigns of Norwegian kings and to notable events can be little trusted, at any rate when they refer to a period before the con­ version of Iceland to Christianity. The only method available to these medieval scholars was guesswork, supported by calcu­ lation backward from later events of known date, but seldom checked by reference to more trustworthy foreign records. Nevertheless, humbly as their conclusions are sometimes offered,1 they have been accepted until recently by modern historians, and it is on them that Guðbrandur Vigfússon’s Timatal is largely based. Strangely enough, it was Vigfússon himself who first challenged the findings of his own research, and attempted to introduce a new chronology.12 His early work stood unchallenged, but his maturer revision of it was passed by. It was left for Halvdan Koht, writing forty years later, to redis­ cover Vigfússon’s method and to reach similar conclusions.3 The method which Vigfiisson and H. Koht employed is based largely on the average period of time elapsing between one generation and the next. Instead, for instance, of the three customary dates 850 for the birth of Haraldr hárfagri, 872 for the battle of Hafrsfjgrðr, and 934-5 for the accession of Håkon Aðalsteinsfóstri, Koht would substitute 865-70, 900, and 945. 1 e.g. Theodricus, ch. i: ‘ Sed quia valde difficile est in hujusce ad liquidum veritatem comprehendere, maxime ubi nulla opitulatur scriptorum auctoritas, istum numerum nullo modo volumus praejudicare certiori, si reperiri valet .. .* (ed. G . Storm, Monumenta Historica Norvégiæ, Oslo, 1880). 2 Corpus Poeticum Borealet ii, Oxford, 1883, pp. 487-500. 3 Innhogg og Utsyn, Oslo, 1921, pp. 3 4 -5 1; cf. Haakon Shetelig, Det norske folks liv og historie, i, Oslo, 1930, pp. 246-9.

xlvi

I N T R O D U C T IO N

The arguments by which such results are obtained are not in themselves conclusive, but they are sufficient to cast serious doubts on the traditional dating of the Norse historians. In the cases of Håkon and of Eiríkr blóðox there are, moreover, shreds of evidence from foreign sources which support the revised dates. According to the Icelandic and Norwegian sources Eirikr was driven from Norway by his younger brother Håkon. Eirikr fled to England and, by agreement with the English king (Aðalsteinn in Norse sources), he was made ruler of Northumberland. Now, it seems that Eirikr is remembered in the Old English records, for the Chronicled Yric Haroldes sunu can hardly be other than he.1 This Yric does not make his appearance in England until 948. In that year, perhaps already in 947, the Northumbrians received him as king. This gives us additional reason to believe that it was not until shortly before that date that Håkon returned to Norway. There seems to be evidence, then, that Hákon’s reign did not begin before about 945. It would be a mistake to suppose that the author of VGL was more learned than the historians of his day, or that he knew the dates of Hákon’s reign better than they. On the contrary, though he was probably well acquainted with the histon* of his own district, it is likely that his knowledge was limited to Iceland. Consequently, it is doubtful whether he had any clear idea of the date of Hakon’s accession. If he had, he most probably followed the scholars of medieval Iceland. Therefore, from his point of view, the date of Hakon’s accession would more likely be 935 than 945. We have seen, however, that if we accept the date 935 for Eyjolfr’s voyage to Norway, we are left with a cramped and improbable system of chronology. If we substitute 945 for 935, our difficulties become still greater. We are compelled, there­ fore, to disregard the reference to Ilákon Aftalsteinsfóstri. If it was indeed present in the original saga, then the author must be assumed to have been ignorant of the dates of Hakon’s reign. In the last chapter of the saga we arc told that Ghimr, who 1 See A. Dugge, Norges Historie, i. 2, Oslo, 1910, pp. 180 ff.

CHRONOLOGY

xlvii

had been baptized when Christianity came to Iceland, lived for three winters more, and was confirmed in his last illness by Bishop Kolr. In this statement, the author has once more been accused of inaccuracy. It has been said that Glúmr could not have survived the Conversion so long that he was still alive when Bishop Kolr came to Iceland.There are some indications that this objection is well founded. Kolr has been identified with the Kolr byskup remembered by Ari, in Hungrvaka, and in a late ‘appendix’ to Landnámabók, Ari (fslendingabóky viii. i) mentions Kolr third among the foreign bishops in Iceland, and says that he was there but few years. The first of these foreign bishops recorded is Friðrekr, but he was in Iceland during the heathen period (circa 981-5). After the Conversion the first named in Ari’s list is Bjarnharðr inn bókvísi, who remained five years. K. Maurer supposes, on external evidence, that Bjarnharðr was in Iceland 1016-21.1 If this supposition is correct, it suggests that Kolr arrived after the latter date, for he is next on the list. It is, nevertheless, uncertain whether Ari’s list adheres strictly to chronological order. The order given in Hungrvaka (Ch. I ll) deviates considerably from that of Islendingabok. Hungrvaka (ii. 14) has something more to tell us of Kolr. It says that he came to Iceland in the days of Bishop ísleifr. Little can be deduced from this assertion, for the expression um daga ísleifs biskups might refer to any period during ísleifr’s career, not merely to the days when he was bishop {circa 1054-80). Hungrvaka adds that Kolr died in Iceland, and that he was the first nobleman (tiginn maðr) to be buried at Skálholt. A more emphatic statement is found in a late ‘appendix’ to Landnámabók. It is said there that according to Hungrvaka Kolr was with Hallr i Haukadal.2 Hallr is known to have set up his farm in Haukadalr about 1025. Considering the lateness and 1 K . Maurer, Die Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes zum Chris tenthume, i, München, 1855-6, pp. 593-6. 2 See Islendinga Sögur, i, Copenhagen, 1843, p. 332. Some texts of the appendix actually say that Kolr came to Iceland anno i o o jt hut these are clearly influenced by V G L See op. cit., p. 332, footnote 9.

xlviii

IN T R O D U C T I O N

unreliability of the ‘appendix1, however, it would be rash to draw conclusions from it. Conclusive evidence for the date when Kolr came to Iceland is lacking. Nevertheless, it must be conceded that there is, at least, some reason to believe that it was not during the first years of the Christian period. K . Maurer,1 in an attempt partially to reconcile VGL with the Ltidn. appendix, suggests that there is nothing against the supposition that Glumr lived until 1025. But this, as the sequel will show, is improbable. In the last chapter, before recording his confirmation by Kolr, the saga states that Glumr was baptized when Christianity came to Iceland, and that he lived for three winters more. This is not incredible, nor is it incompatible with statements contained in the saga (other than those already discussed). It is, of course, unnecessary to interpret it literally, or to conclude from it that Glumr died precisely in the year 1003. We need not, in fact, interpret the words på er kristni kom út hingat to mean that Glumr was baptized exactly in the year 1000, the year when the new faith was approved by the Alþingi. Nor, considering our author’s lack of precision in chronological matters, need we conclude that he lived for exactly three years after his conver­ sion, for the number three is often conventional. There is, however, nothing against the assumption that Glumr died during the years 1003-5. By the time of his death, Glumr was an old man and blind. I le was, say, seventy or seventy-five years old. In that case he was born 930-5, ptrhaps even a few years earlier. Such dates for Gh'imr’s birth and death agree with conclusions derived from other sources. Gudmundr riki, it may be calculated, died about 1025 after a long career. lie too was an old man at the time of his death, and was probably born about 955. Gudmundr was a relative of Glumr, for both of them were descended from Hclgi enn magri. Gudmundr, however, belonged to the fourth genera­ tion from Ilelgi, Glumr to the third. Consequently, it is reason­ able to suppose that Glumr was about 25 years older than 1 Die Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes sum Christenthume, ii. 582-3.

CHRONOLOGY

xlix

Guðmundr. It is, therefore, unlikely that Gliimr died as late as Guðmundr. A consideration of Ljósvetninga Saga, moreover, makes it probable that Guðmundr and Vigfiiss, the son of VigaGlúmr, were of comparable age. VGL tells us that according to a popular saying Gliimr was for twenty years the most powerful chieftain in Eyjafjgrðr, and for another twenty years none were more than his match. These two periods of twenty years most probably correspond with the number forty mentioned in verse 9. This verse is obscure and somewhat corrupt, but in it Gliimr seems to speak of forty years during which he and his family had remained happy in their home. Such round numbers as twenty and forty are typical of medieval reckoning, and naturally arouse suspicion. Neverthe­ less, in the present instance, the number forty shows striking agreement with the annals. According to their dating, the death of Sigmundr took place in 944 and the battle of Hrisateigr in 983-4. Against the later entry there is nothing to be said. The battle of Hrisateigr was, in fact, an occurrence so important that its date was likely to be long remembered among those whose families it concerned.1 It is, however, possible that the date of Sigmundr’s death is obtained by calculation, intended to establish the forty years of popular belief. In reality, it would appear from the saga that it was several years after the battle of Hrisateigr that Gliimr finally left Þverá and lost his authority. Nevertheless, if we follow the saga, we see that Gliimr must have slain Sigmundr at a remarkably early age. It would appear that he was not more than seventeen or eighteen at that time.12 Accordingly, if we are disposed to place the hero’s birth a few 1 Ðarði Guðmundsson suggests (Andvari, 1936, pp. 35 ff.) that these dates were recorded through Jorunn, daughter of Einarr Þveræingr, and módursystir o f Þuríðr hin spaka Snorradóttir goða, whom Ari calls margsppk ok óljúgfróð. In any case, the descendants of Einarr I>veræingr would have good reason to remember the date of the battle of Hrisateigr, for it was the immediate cause of the family’s annexation of Þverá. 2 In Ch. V , we read: Þ á var Gliimr Jimtdn vetra, er hann fýstisk útan. In Ch. V I, which can hardly be more than a year later, we read of his journey to Norway. M ost probably he returned to Iceland in the following year.

1

IN T R O D U C T IO N

years before 930, the date 944 for Sigmundr’s death is not im­ possible. In any case, if Gliimr was born about 930, we should expect that he slew Sigmundr not later than 947-8. On the latter calculation we might well suppose that the battle of Hrisateigr took place in 983-4, as the annals state, and that Gliimr left Þverá in 987-8. The forty years of tradition are then established. For the first twenty of them Gliimr was supreme. After that rival chieftains rose gradually to power; among them were Einarr and Guðmundr, the sons of Eyjólfr Valgerðarson.1 A few years after Gliimr’s expulsion from Þverá follows the story of Klœngr, son of Hriseyjar-Narfi (Ch. X X VII). This episode falls outside the main theme of the story. Nevertheless, it is clearly inserted in order to show how Gliimr attempts to recover his lost position in Eyjafjgrðr. The chapter involves difficulties of its own, which are something more than chrono­ logical. Its details are, therefore, better discussed in another section of this introduction (see § III. B). We have seen that the chronology of VGI. involves grave internal difficulties. Conclusive evidence for their solution is not available. As approximate dates, however, we may accept 930 for the hero’s birth, and 1003-5 for his death. Between these two dates, the various episodes of the saga may be fitted in logically, without pressure or confusion. According to this rough chronology it may be assumed that Gliimr went to Nor­ way about 946, that he had already returned in 947 and slew Sigmundr shortly afterwards. In that case he probably married Halldóra about 949-50. If we date the battle of Hrisateigr in 984, it follows that Yigfiiss must have slain Bárðr about six 1 An interesting suggestion is made by Bar^i Guftmundsson (Skirtnr, cxi, * 037. PP- f>7 8). When the Constitution of Iceland was rexised in 963, it is held, the \\>ftla|>ing was divided into two. Accordingly three new t*odorð were made. Among the new titular, liartli suggests, were Borgeirrá Ljoauxatni and Kyjólfr ValgenW son á M^wVuv^llum. If this is so, the dating of the annals suits the story well. From the death of Sigmundr in 944 until about 964, G lum r’s authority was unrivalled. After that it was threatened by the godar newly created in the neighbourhood, particularly by Kxjolfr and his family, until Gliim r was finally defeated at Hrisateigr in 984. T h is sugges­ tion supports the two periods of twenty years of which tradition speaks.

CHRONOLOGY

li

years earlier,1 or in 978, and that Arngrimr slew Steinólfr about 983. On the same reckoning, Glúmr must have left Þverá about 987-8. Afterwards, he lived for one winter at Mgðruvellir i Hgrgárdal and for two in Myrkárdalr. The remainder of his life, the saga states, was spent at Þverbrekka i Øxnadal. §V M A N U SC R IP T S, E D IT IO N S, T R A N S L A T IO N S , E T C . complete text of Viga-Glums Saga ( VGl .) is contained in the codex Mgðruvallabók (M.), No. 132 fol. of the Arnamagnean collection. This codex is assigned to the first half of the fourteenth century,2 and comprises eleven sagas, of which VGl. is the sixth in order. Among other texts included in M. are Njdla, Egils Saga, Fóstbrœðra Sagay and Bandamanna Saga. In addition to the complete text in M., a few fragments of the saga are present in Vatnshyrna (A.M. 564 a, 4to, called V.)t probably written about the end of the fourteenth century,3 and in A.M . 445 c, 4to (called C.), ascribed to the beginning of the fifteenth century.4 Both of these fragments are printed as appendixes in the present edition. Their relationship with M. is discussed in § II above. Paper copies of VGl.y mostly made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, are numerous, though all of them known to the present editor can be shown to descend from M., either directly or through lost intermediaries. Consequently, though they testify to the popularity of the saga, they are of little value in establishing the text. They may be divided, following the T he

1 From Ch. X X I I I it may be deduced that when he appeared at the battle o f Hrísateigr, Vigfúss had been for three years in hiding as a full outlaw, and that for the three previous years he had been fjyrbaugsmadr for slaying Bárðr. These two periods probably make up the six winters spoken of in Ch. X IX ,

33 /»i2 See Guðmundur Þorláksson’s introduction to VGl., pp. vi-vii. T h e whole codex has recently been published in facsimile (Corpus Codicum Islandicorum, V, Copenhagen, 1933), with an introduction by Einar 01 . Sveinsson. O n the date of the M S . see op. cit., p. 21. 3 Cf. Katalog over den Arnamagnæanske Håndskriftsamling, i, Copenhagen, 1888-94, p. 717 -8 . 4 Cf. ibid., 642.

lii

IN TR O D U C TIO N

previous editor, Guðmundur Þorláksson, into two groups, A and By according to their proximity to M . or their remoteness from it. References in the textual notes of the present edition are made only tb A i (A.M. 508 4to), a direct transcript of Af. partly in the hand of Árni Magnússon. For a more detailed description of the paper manuscripts the reader may consult the introduction to Guðmundur Þorláksson’s edition of the saga. The most important edition of the saga is that of Gudmundur Þorláksson for Hid islenzka bóbnenntafélag (denoted as G .Þ ).1 In his edition Guðmundur compromised between diplomatic reproduction and normalized spelling. All abbreviations were arbitrarily expanded, and the usual accents filled in, but such manuscript spellings as haustið, Risateigr, lut were generally, though by no means always, preserved. The edition includes an introduction of considerable value, with a description of many paper manuscripts, and a discussion of various textual problems. It is remarkable, however, that though the editor was clearly aware that the paper manuscripts with which he dealt were descended from Af.,2 he attached much weight to their variant readings, not infrequently inserting them in his text. At the same time, it must be admitted that Gudmundur’s readings of the manuscripts were unusually inaccurate for his time. Guðmundur Þorláksson’s edition was followed in the nor­ malized editions of Valdimar Ásmundarson (Reykjavik, 1897) and of Benedikt Sveinsson (Reykjavik, 1924, denoted as B.S.), and was made the basis of subsequent discussions and transla­ tions. In many ways more accurate than Gudmundur Þorláksson's edition was that of Hid norrænafornfrædafélag (denoted as Í.S.),3 published half a century earlier. This edition was prepared by Þorgeir Gudmundsson and l>orsteinn Helgason. Mention should also be made of Gudmundur Petursson’s edition of 1 ’G/.,4 1 Islenzkar Fornsögur, i, Copenhagen, 1880. 2 See his Introduction, p. x, lines 1-3. 3 islendinga Sögur, ii, Copenhagen, 1830. 4 Víga-Glúms Saga, sive Vita Víga-Glúmi, Havniæ, 1786.

M A N U S C R IP T S , E D I T I O N S , E T C .

liii

giving a peculiarly inaccurate text, accompanied with a Latin rendering and a glossary. A particularly interesting edition is that of Björn Markússon, included in the collection Agiætar Fornmanna Sögur, printed at Hólar i Hjaltadal in 1756 (denoted as H.). The sources of this edition are not yet fully clear and, in Guðmundur Þorláksson's view,1 it was edited from a lost manuscript. In reality, however, it would seem to waver between the two groups of paper manu­ scripts denoted by Guðmundur as A and B . In all probability, therefore, its text is an eclectic one.2 The text of VGL was included in the Origines Islandicae of Guðbrandur Vigfússon and F. York Powell,3 together with an abridged translation. The text in the Origines is preceded by a short introduction in which the traditions of the saga are dis­ cussed as well as some of its textual problems. It is asserted by the editors that the opinion of VGL previously expressed by Vigfússon in the Prolegomena to Sturlunga Saga* had been too favourable. This modified view is said to be the result of subsequent historical research. The arguments given are, how­ ever, manifestly baseless, and are founded on mistraced genea­ logies and on arbitrary historical criticism.5 But even if their criticism were well founded it would apply only to the saga’s historical accuracy, and it would remain regrettable that these editors should have ignored its literary qualities. It may be 1 See his Introduction, p. xii. 2 On many small points, //. shows peculiarly close agreement with M S . Add. i i 1 12, written in 1737 and preserved in the British Museum. T h e two texts not infrequently contain similar errors, such a s: l tnidjum Ardal for i Miðárdal (26/11), hidbjgrn for z idbjgrn (5/14). It should be noted, however, that though this M S . belongs to the B group, H. begins in the manner of A . 3 Oxford, 1905, ii. 431 ff. 4 Ed. Gudbrand Vigfusson (i.e. Guðbrandur Vigfússon), Oxford, 1878, i, p. lvi. 5 As an example, it should be noted that the genealogy with which the introduction in the Origines opens, and on which the argument is mainly founded, conflicts with all known records. Vigdis, the mother of Halli, is there said to be the daughter of Einarr. In reality, if the genealogies of Landnámabók are to be trusted, Vigdis was Einarr’s sister. It follows, there­ fore, that Bárðr Hallason is of the same generation as Vigfúss Glúmsson. Hence the argument of the editors of the Origines that Bárðr would have been too young to be contemporary with Vigfúss is baseless.

liv

IN T R O D U C T IO N

doubted whether this criticism would have been allowed to pass in its present form if the Origines had had the benefit of Vigfússon’s final revision. VGL has several times been translated. In English, the only complete translation is that of Sir Edmund Head.1 In style Head’s version is straightforward and free from affected archaism, though its value is occasionally marred by the trans­ lator’s failure to understand the original: a fault which he some­ times attempts to conceal by vague and ambiguous renderings. Mention may also be made of the translation into German by W. Ranisch,2 into Norwegian riksmål by Sigrid Undset,3 and into Faeroese by Símun av Skarði,4 all of which have been found helpful in preparing the present edition. For further biblio­ graphical details the reader should consult the exhaustive biblio­ graphies of Halldor Hermannsson.5 In conclusion, a word should be said of the present edition. The text has been normalized throughout and, in order to facilitate stylistic comparison, the fragments V. and C., printed as appendixes, are treated in the same way as the main text. In an edition of the scope of the present one this method is clearly preferable to that sometimes followed by editors, who normalize their main text and print fragments in diplomatic spelling, thus magnifying the difference between them. It should be added that, owing to the general use of abbreviations, diplomatic editions of texts such as these give but a poor idea of their manuscripts. In the present edition the saga is treated as a literary and cultural, rather than as a linguistic or orthographical monument. When my readings of the fragments V. and C . were made, large parts of these manuscripts were covered with strips of thin paper, which had been stuck on to hold them together. Con­ sequently, I was often dependent on my own conjectures and on the readings of Gudnwndur I>orIáksson. But since I last saw 1 The Story of Viga-Glum, London, 1866. 2 Thule, xi, Fünf Geschichten aus dent östlichen X ordland, Jena, 1921, pp. 27-100. 3 Tre Sagaer om Islændinger, Oslo, 1923, pp. 3-88. 4 Víggja-Glúms Sega, Torshavn, 1920. 5 Islandica, i, Ithaca, 1908, pp. 103 5 ; op. cit., xxiv, Ithaca, 1935, pp. 7 1-2 .

M A N U S C R IP T S , E D IT IO N S , E TC .

Iv

these manuscripts these strips of paper have been removed, and Professor Jón Helgason, Curator of the Arnamagnean Collec­ tion, has very kindly checked my text and, besides confirming my conjectures, has supplied a number of additional readings which I had been unable to see. His alterations were inserted into my text when it was in proof, and my thanks are therefore due to him. In certain instances the abbreviations used in the manuscripts leave it impossible to distinguish between words such as segir, sagðiy svarar, svaraðiyall of which are frequently expressed by s. Similarly mælir is sometimes indistinguishable from mælti (both expressed by m.)y and kvezk is indistinguishable from kvazk (expressed by q.). In cases such as these I have usually followed the previous editor, whose knowledge of the language, as a native Icelander, was superior to mine. At the same time I have adopted throughout as normal the forms sonryvinryin preference to soriy viny though it is often difficult to decide which the manuscripts favour. An attempt has been made to make the spellings consistent, though it will be realized that normalization is largely a matter of convention, and that full consistency is impossible. The Textual Notes in this edition, being of little general interest, have been made as short as possible, but it is hoped that the essentials have been covered. In certain instances, when interpretation is dubious, the exact spellings of the manuscripts are given in the Textual Notes.1 The General Notes are in­ tended to explain such passages as an English-speaking student might find difficult, to show the saga’s relationship with other documents, and to supply an historical and literary background. The strophes in the text have offered grave difficulty. Un­ doubtedly they are often corrupt, and are now to a large extent incomprehensible. In the present edition the spelling of these strophes has been normalized, but they are printed without 1 T h e spellings given in the Textual Notes should only he accepted as representing those of the M S S . when they differ from the normal spellings used in this book.

lvi

IN T R O D U C T IO N

emendation in the text. A number of proposed emendations are, however, given in the General Notes.1 When one interpretation has been followed in preference to others, the strophes are punctuated accordingly in the text. I have been fortunate in having the generous help of my friend Dr. Einar 01. Sveinsson of Reykjavik, with whom problems relating to these strophes have been discussed. In some instances he has offered me original interpretations hitherto unpublished. These, when included in the notes, are marked with his initials (E. Ó. S.). 1 Proposed emendations are printed in italics in the prose reconstructions o f the verses given in the General Notes.

VÍGA-GLÚMS SAGA Hér heft Víga-Glúms spgu I . I n g j a l d r hét maðr, sonr Helga hins magra; hann bjó at Þverá í Eyjafirði. Hann var forn goðorðsmaðr ok hgfðingi mikill ok þá aldraðr mjQk, er sagan gerðisk. Hann var kvángaðr maðr ok átti tvá sonu, Steinólf ok Eyjólf. Þeir váru menn vel mannaðir ok váru báðir fríðir sýnum. Ingjaldr var einlyndr 5 ok fálátr, ódæll ok fasttœkr. Hann lagði lítinn hug á kaupmenn, vildi ekki yfir sér hafa þeira ofsa; ok ef hann girnisk af kaupmgnnum ngkkut at hafa, þá sendi hann aðra menn til, en fór eigi sjålfr. Skip kom enn eitt sumar í Eyjafjgrð; Hreiðarr hét stýrimaðr, 10 ættstórr. Hann átti bu á V