Gripla - 01.01.1993, Síða 247

ABBOT ARNGRÍMR’S GUÐMUNDAR SAGA BISKUPS
247
still in Sighvatr’s custody, prior to his expulsion to Norway, Guðmundr
suffered physical abuse (chs. 44, 45, p. 293). These were serious trans-
gressions, as evidenced by the strong wording of Canon 15 of the Sec-
ond Lateran Council in 1139.46 Still Sighvatr’s treatment of Guðmundr
was mild47 compared to the manhandling Guðmundr had previously
endured in 1218 and 1219, as a prisoner of Sighvatr’s ally, Arnórr
Tumason (ca. 1184-1221). Arngrímr, however, resorts to a variety of lit-
erary means to vilify Sighvatr. One of these is Arngrfmr’s surprisingly
benign assessment of Sighvatr’s son, Sturla. Arngrímr forwards the
baffling notion that Sturla Sighvatsson was a more ethical man than
Sighvatr (ch. 67, p. 390). According to íslendinga saga, there is no basis
for this judgment. With the exception of his battles against Bishop
Guðmundr, Sighvatr showed unusual restraint in using force and vio-
lence in the furtherance or defense of his interests. His son evinced
none of this reluctance. Sturla was ruthless in his pursuit of power,
particularly after his return in 1235 from a mandated penitential pil-
grimage to Rome (1232)48 and from secret negotiations with the Nor-
wegian king, Hákon Hákonarson (1217-1262). Arngrímr’s bias rests on
flimsy or subjective grounds, on a specious foreshortening of recurrent
events49 and on a rigid, canonical interpretation of Sturla’s pilgrimage
to Rome.
46 hem placuit, ut si quis suadenle diabolo hujus sacrilegii reatum incurrit, quod in
clericum vel monachum violentas manus injecerit, anathematis vinculo subjaceat. . ., ed.
Charles-Joseph Hefele, Histoire des Conciles d'aprcs les Documents originaux, trans.,
annotated Dom. H. Leclercq, 2nd. ed. (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1912), V. Pt. 1, pp. 729-
30.
47 Cf. Arngrímr’s allegations that Guðmundr’s skeleton bears witness to the savage
treatment he suffered and that books record the breaking of three ribs (chs. 58, 77, pp.
348, 427) might be dated to his imprisonment in 1218 and 1219.
48 Marlene Ciklamini, “Sturla Sighvatsson’s Chieftaincy. A Moral Probe,“ Sturlu-
stefna. Ráðstefna haidin á sjö alda ártíð Sturlu Pórðarsonar sagnaritara 1984, eds. Guð-
rún Ása Grímsdóttir, Jónas Kristjánsson (Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, 1988),
pp. 234-35. See also D.U. Berliére, “Les Pélerinages judiciaires au Moyen Age,“ Revue
Bénédictine, 1 (1890), 522-23; Cyrille Vogel, “Le Pélerinage pénitentiel,” Pellegrinaggi e
culto dei santi in Europa fino alla Ia crociata 8-11 ottobre 1961 (Todi: Accademia Tuder-
tina, 1963), 39-92.
49 For the practice of subordinating historical truth to hagiographic truth, see Klaus
Schreiner, “Zum Wahrheitsverstandnis im Heiligen- und Reliquienwesen des Mittel-
alters,” Saeculum, Jahrbuch fiir Universalgeschichte, 17 (1966), 143. Still, Arngrímr’s om-
ission of historical fact might also be due to his choice of the second of the two rhetor-