Gripla - 01.01.1993, Page 213

SAINTS AND SINNERS
213
same significance for Hrafn as it does for St. Magnús, both as regards
his innocence and his salvation.
In cases like the above, where we have an extended text by a single
author dealing with the character in question, we can arrive at fairly
secure conclusions as to its import. Many of the deaths described in
Sturlunga, however, are relatively minor incidents, and we have in-
sufficienl knowledge of the individuals and issues involved to be sure
how contemporaries would have interpreted them. It must be remem-
bered that even in the Middle Ages, opinions concerning holiness
might vary. The sanctity of Bishop Jón was not immediately accepted,137
and the suggestion that someone slain in a feud was a saint might well
meet with scepticism. Fortitude in the face of death was an ambiguous
virtue, even when accompanied by prayers; it could equally well indicate
divine favour or worldly bravery. Nor were these two types of virtue mu-
tually exclusive; most of the passages examined praise an individual’s
courage or prowess as well as his devotions. The combination of ideals is
most clearly exemplified in the description of Sæmundr Ormsson, 'er
varð við dauðann bæði harðliga ok hjálpvænliga.’13!i
The difficulties involved in interpretating such descriptions are com-
pounded by the fact that the extant text does not necessarily represent
a single point of view, but may have been altered by an unknown num-
ber of redactors. Generally speaking, the passage of time tended to in-
crease a reputation for sanctity; Harold Godwinson, ‘er sumir menn
kalla helgan vera’ according to Oddr’s saga of Ólafr Tryggvason is
‘sannheilagr’ in Hauksbók. Ásólfr alskik’s sanctity is implied in Land-
náma - more clearly in Hauksbók than Sturlubók - but the greater
saga of Ólafr Tryggvason has no hesitation in stating that he was ‘kall-
aðr heilagr.’ The annals frequently differ among themselves as to
whether various individuals were, or were merely said to be, saints.
(Statements of the latter type need not imply disbelief; they may mere-
ly indicate lack of information, or the fact that canonization had not
been approved by the papacy at the time the entry was written.)
It is sometimes possible to assess the bias of an author or redactor,
which can then be taken into account in evaluating his work. Heims-
Bp I 197 and 468-9 / Gs I 120.
Stu II100 / K II 127.