Gripla - 20.12.2005, Síða 144

GRIPLA
kind of historical basis: Ko›rán’s admiration for Christian rituals, his belief in
a spirit in a stone and the fact that he was somehow convinced of the
superiority of the Christian God are all plausible in the context of religious
history, and only the literary shaping of the story betrays the mind of an
author. Likewise, Fri›rekr’s defeat of two berserks can be readily admitted to
the sphere of history on the grounds of psychology: Piebenga argues that the
berserks entered into a hypnotic state in order to stride painlessly through fire,
which the bishop was able to cancel because of their fearful expectations of
Christianity and loss of faith in their own gods (Piebenga 1984:88, 90). These
tentative conclusions are, however, rather undercut by the parenthetical ad-
mission towards the beginning of the article that „det er helt umulig å be-
stemme noe slikt med sikkerhet“ (‘it is quite impossible to decide such a thing
with certainty’): as she herself admits, the fact that an event could or might
have happened – is „naturlig“, „forståelig“ or „forklarlig“ (‘natural’, ‘under-
standable’, or ‘explainable’) – falls short of proving that it actually did.
ARI AND SOURCE CRITICISM
As faith in the historical reliability of the sagas diminished in the course of the
twentieth century, an increasing dependence on Ari came to dominate writing
about the conversion. In his Íslendinga saga, Jón Jóhannesson (1956:151-52)
echoes Maurer and Björn M. Ólsen on the reliability of Ari’s work „fla› sem
hún nær“ (‘as far as it goes’), but is equivocal about the later sources: „Rit
flessi eru mjög varhugaver›ar heimildir, flótt flau geymi sjálfsagt ‡mis forn
minni, svo sem vísur“ (‘These writings are very dubious sources, although
they obviously preserve various old memories, such as verses’). Emphasis on
the undoubted (if not faultless) trustworthiness of Ari, coupled with scepticism
as to the value of other sources, is also characteristic of Sigur›ur Líndal’s
work in the first volume of Saga Íslands (see, for example, Líndal 1974:231).
Both men use Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta and Kristni saga only when
there is nothing else to go on, and even then exercise extreme caution, re-
taining only the bare outlines of the narrative. Once they reach the period
covered by Ari, they stick closely to his account. Jón supplements it with
skaldic verses, place-names and a few incidents from Landnámabók, but Lín-
dal (1974:241) is wary even of these modest additions: „Hitt ver›ur aftur a›
mestu láti› liggja milli hluta, sem a›rar heimildir greina“ (‘What the other
sources say will again mostly be ignored’). The studies of the conversion by
142