Gripla - 20.12.2005, Qupperneq 27

STYLISTICS AND SOURCES OF THE POSTOLA SÖGUR 25
exercises control through his demons over the deluded and sickened heathen
worshippers. Astaroth is in fact a secondary character who is manipulated by
the apostle into admitting his and his chieftain’s wiles (in fact he is no real
threat since he is already bound); by doing so, he plays the opposite role of
most Pseudo-Abdian secondary characters (thus displaying another of the
saga’s characteristic juxtapositions) by not assisting in the benign conversion
of the passio’s ruler, but in fact by betraying his own chieftain (as is right,
since by nature these adversaries are deceptive) and granting to the apostle the
victory.
As far as stylistics are concerned, Collings has pointed out that although
the AM 645 4to and AM 652/630 4to versions of Bartholomew’s saga are
rendered in what she calls the ‘popular style’ of Old Norse prose (that is, Latin
absolute and participial phrases are in general replaced with paratactic or
simple hypotactic constructions), they tend occasionally toward idiomatic or
stylistically motivated translations, especially in places where through their
language they are able to more closely support or mirror the saga’s dualistic or
circular themes.33 Parallels and contrasts are exaggerated by the translators’
use of rhetorical devices such as anaphora or polyptoton (that may or may not
occur in the Latin),34 or by adapting the Latin text freely through additions,
33 See Collings 1969:171.
34 As an example of a passage in Bartholomew’s saga in which Latin rhetoric is reproduced,
Collings cites a passage from AM 652/630 4to parallel to the AM 645 4to passage quoted
above in n. 24, concerning Christ’s threefold victory over the devil’s temptations: „En sa er
um sinn haf›i stigit yfir meyiar son, hann var› nu flrifalldliga yfirstiginn af meyiar syni“
(Post.:747.37-8), as well as a preceding clause on the same subject: „fiviat flat var rett, at
meyiar sonr stigi yfir flann, er fyrr haf›i stigit yfir meyiar son“ (Post.:747.5-6); both state-
ments conclude parallel sections of Bartholomew’s central sermon and summarize their
content. The passages reproduce the polyptoton of the Latin (through repetition of forms of
the verb stiga for the Latin’s uinco) and reinforce the parallels between the sermon’s sections:
1) „par enim erat ut qui filium uirginis uicerat a filio uirginis uinceretur“ (A A A I,2:136.14-
15); 2) „[...] qui semel uicerat hominem terrae uirginis filium a sanctae uirginis filio homine
tripliciter uinceretur“ (A A A II,1:138.12-139.2).
Collings also cites a passage here concerning the devil’s temptation of Adam to eat, in order
to show how the Icelandic translators reinforce verbal parallels through repetitions: „En nu
sva sem fiandinn mællti vi› hinn fyrsta mann, at hann æti, ok at hann, ok var af flvi a braut
rekinn or paradis og gorr utlægr i heim flenna,“ etc. (Post.:746.35-6). One of the most inte-
resting things about this passage in Icelandic is not only its enhanced rhetorical style (see
Collings 1969:173), but also the fact that the translator leaves out the woman’s part in
Adam’s fall: „[...] ut sicut dixerat Adae, id est primo homini, per mulierem: Manduca, et
manducauit, et sic de paradiso est proiectus et in isto mundo exiliatus [...] (A A A II,1:136.6-