Gripla - 20.12.2005, Síða 140

GRIPLA138
many intriguing additional details. While Ari gives only a vague picture of
fiangbrandr’s mission to Iceland and leaves many questions unanswered in his
fuller account of the legal conversion, later sources tell in detail of fiang-
brandr’s exploits, substantiated in part by skaldic verses and place-names.
They also tell of two earlier missions, led by fiorvaldr Ko›ránsson and Stefnir
fiorgilsson, of which the first in particular is problematic material, with its
miracles, chronological impossibilities and edifying commentary. Any recon-
struction of Icelandic conversion history has to take into account the stories
contained in these later texts, if only to dismiss them as religious propaganda
or downright fabrication. In this paper, I would like to look at some of the
ways in which historians have handled the sources on the conversion, and then
suggest that these may not be so different from how a medieval historian, the
compiler of Kristni saga, approached his work.
EARLY HISTORIES OF THE CONVERSION
Typical of early accounts of Icelandic conversion history is a more or less
uncritical use of all the available sources, with little attempt to distinguish
levels of reliability. Perhaps the most rigorous is the German law professor
Konrad Maurer’s Die Bekehrung des Norwegischen Stammes zum Christen-
thume, published in two volumes in 1855-56. Maurer uses a complete range
of sources, all translated in full, and ordered according to a strict chronology
of events: in his introduction, he promises to observe „den engsten Anschluß
an die chronologische Reihenfolge der Begebenheiten” (‘the narrowest ad-
herence to the chronological order of events’) and to write „mit dem wissen-
schaftlichen Ernste, welchen jede geschichtliche Forschung voraussezt”
(‘with the scientific seriousness, which all historical research requires’)
(Maurer 1965:vii-viii). Although aware that some of the texts he uses may
contain unhistorical features, he argues that these serve „als Beleg für die
Sinnesweise der Zeit” (‘as evidence for the mentality of the time’) and best
provide the reader with „eine lebendige Anschauung” (‘a vivid depiction’)
(Maurer 1965:viii). The general reliability of the sources is, however, taken
for granted, and Maurer’s commentary focuses mainly on chronological dif-
ficulties, legal issues, and the political reasons for Iceland’s conversion.
Maurer’s work provided the foundation for Björn M. Ólsen’s seminal study
Um kristnitökuna ári› 1000 og tildrög hennar, which was written in com-
memoration of the nine-hundredth anniversary of Christianity in Iceland, and