Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1992, Síða 267

Reykjahólabók
265
translation.41 There is no evidence that would permit us to conclude that the
compiler/translator/copyist of Reykjahólabók retold legends in his own
words. The most striking piece of evidence for the assertion that he did not
revise or add to his sources is provided by Gregorius saga biskups, that is, the
apocryphal legend of Gregorius peccator. The translator knew two versions
of the legend, what may be called the papal and the episcopal redactions, the
original and better-known version in which Gregorius becomes pope, which
derives from Hartmann von Aue’s Gregorius, and another in which he
merely becomes bishop. The oldest known attestation of this latter variant is
a Low German exemplum printed in two Low German Plenaria (Liibeck
1492 and 1493), compilations containing the pericopes in the vernacular
together with exegetical and homiletic matter. This redaction of the
Gregorius-tale, despite its brevity, is characterized by several additional
episodes vis-á-vis Hartmann’s account - including a striking scene in which
Gregorius threatens to run his mother through with a sword if she does not
tell him who he is - and the divergent conclusion in which Gregorius is
elevated not to the papacy but rather to the episcopacy of a nearby town. In
Reykjahólabók the translator attempted toward the end of the narrative to
harmonize the variant conclusions. Repeatedly he intercalated conflicting
information from a second source, which must have resembled the
exemplum in the Plenarium; at the same time he revealed what he was doing,
for example, when he remarks: “So og j annare grein verda og rithningarnar
tvisaga vmm þat at ... “ (II, 24:34-25:1). He was not entirely successful in
fashioning a two-stranded conclusion, in reconciling the repeated
interjection of variant scenes with the basic linear structure of this section of
the narrative, so that it is quite easy to distinguish between the translator of
the papal version of the legend and the interpolator of the episcopal variant,
who happen to be one and the same person.42 Here, as in other instances,
when the hagiographer who gave us Reykjahólahók evinces knowledge of
conflicting or otherwise divergent information, he does not fancy himself an
arbiter of truth, but rather a transmitter of information.
41 It should be noted that references to variants in other versions or redactions were a
standard practice among the compilers of legendaries, both Latin and vernacular.
Hence, one needs to distinguish between variants introduced by the compiler of
Reykjahólabók and those transmitted by him from his sources. For example, in
Osvalds saga we read that a stranger who appeared at the court of King Osvaldr one
day is identified in some books as an angel sent by God (I, 74:11-12). This cross
reference is presumably not original but transmitted from the translator’s source, for
in the Passionael the same statement occurs (Cii, d).
42 Cf. Marianne E. Kalinke, “The Icelandic ‘Gregorius peccator’ and the European
Tradition,” The Sixth International Saga Conference, 28.7. - 2.8. 1985 (Copenhagen:
Det arnamagnæanske Institut, 1985), pp. 575-86; also “Gregorius saga biskups and
Gregorius auf dem Stein,” Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur, 113 (1991) 67-88.