Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1992, Side 243

Reykjahólabók
241
her identification was subsequently confirmed by Agnete Loth.4 They
further suggested that Björn was not only the scribe of the anthology but
also the compiler and translator of its legends.5 Although it is entirely
plausible to ascribe to Björn the role not only of scribe, but also of editor,
compiler, and translator, the evidence is only circumstantial. Thus the
question of “authorship” will for the time being have to go unanswered.
One might be tempted to consider Reykjahólabók no more than a
literary curiosity and an ecclesiastical anachronism. It is in fact a notable
literary achievement. It is the last important compilation of legends to be
produced in Europe and, to my knowledge, the unique witness to a group of
narratives, now no longer extant, that had currency in the German language
area at the close of the Middle Ages. In effect, the legendary not only
concludes the medieval and Catholic chapter of Icelandic literature, but also
represents the last European descendant of the great vernacular legendaries
generated by and epitomized in the Legenda aurea (1263-73) of Jacobus de
Voragine. In this respect, Reykjahólabók may be considered to have made a
major contribution to European hagiography. Admittedly, this assessment of
the 16th-century legendary goes counter to prevalent scholarly opinion,
which sees in Reykjahólabók a literary curiosity, composed in a language far
inferior to the religious literature that preceded and followed it.6
What we know about Reykjahólabók more or less rests on the seminal
work of Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen. Despite the importance of
their publications in the early sixties, in which the two scholars presented a
first survey of the contents of Reykjahólabók, they were led astray by the
superficial similarity of the Icelandic legends to those in a popular Low
German legendary, the Passionael, which they identified as the source of
most of the texts in Reykjahólabók. In their opinion, the major portion of
the Icelandic legendary was a translation, albeit at times a freely elaborated
one, of one of the most wide-spread and easily available imprints of the end
4 Mariane Overgaard, The History of the Cross-Tree Down to Christ’s Passion. Ice-
landic Legend Versions, Ed. Arn. B, 26 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1968), pp.
CV-CXI; Agnete Loth, Reykjahólabók, I, XXVIII-XXIX. Cf. Stefán Karlsson,
“Ritun Reykjarfjarðarbókar. Excursus: Bókagerð bænda,” Opuscula IV, Bibl. Arn.,
XXX (Kobenhavn: Munksgaard, 1970), p. 138; Jonna Louis-Jensen, “Den yngre del af
Llateyjarbók,” Afmælisnt Jóns Helgasonar. 30. júni 1969 (Reykjavík: Heimskringla,
1969), pp. 243-44.
5 The History of the Cross-Tree, pp. CX-CXI; Reykjahólabók, I, XXXIX.
6 Jónas Kristjánsson, Eddas and Sagas. Iceland’s Medieval Literature. Tr. by Peter
Foote (Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1988): “But the Reformation was
just round the corner and the new order saw to it that Björn’s collection had no
opportunity to compete for popular favour or fame. Some people may think it not
much of a loss, for the language of the translation is heavily affected by German, a
miscegenation which will stand comparison neither with the older saints’ lives nor
with the writings of the Protestant reformers who were about to appear on the scene”
(p. 146).