Gripla - 01.01.1993, Qupperneq 248

248
GRIPLA
What, then, was the foundation for Arngrímr’s judgment? On a su-
perficial level, the appraisal might rest on a matter Abbot Arngrímr
deemed significant: Sturla’s conciliation with Bishop Guðmundr in
1228, a few years before Sturla departed for Norway to answer a sum-
mons from the Archbishop of Trondheim (ch. 67, p. 388). In íslend-
inga saga, there are two additional meetings between Sturla and Guð-
mundr, one in 1230 and one in 1231 (chs. 62, 79, 82, pp. 318, 341, 346).
Arngrímr foreshortens this historical record. He relates only the first
meeting and substitutes for one of the two others a gift of provisions
from Sturla for Guðmundr’s retinue of the poor (ch. 67, pp. 389-90).
This falsification leads smoothly to his exegesis of Sturla’s pilgrimage
and, accordingly, to the assumption that Sturla was in fact an obedient
and worthy son of the church.
Since Arngrímr neglects to mention the meetings in 1230 and in
1231, the description of the accord in 1228 in both íslendinga saga and
in the vita assumes significance. Both agree essentially on the outlines
leading to a reconciliation. They report that 1. Sighvatr Sturluson had
warned Guðmundr against and had effectively prevented him from re-
turning to his see; 2. Bishop Guðmundr and his retinue had spent the
winter as guests of Þórðr Sturluson; 3. Synchronously, Þórðr was the
aggrieved party in a family feud and entered into a settlement; 4. In-
termediaries linked the bishop’s freedom of movement to the reconcil-
iation; 5. Sturla Sighvatsson and the bishop subsequently ratified this
agreement. The accounts differ, however, in explicitness when it
comes to detailing the circumstances of the accord. They also differ in
identifying Þórðr Sturluson’s adversary in the lawsuit to be settled. In
íslendinga saga, this is clearly Sturla Sighvatsson, for he had mounted
an attack on Þórðr in a pique about losing control over the family goð-
orð. Amgrímr substitutes Sighvatr as the main foe and elaborates upon
this notion. According to Arngrímr, Þórðr is as distressed about Guð-
ical principles which governed the representation of reality, as quoted by Schreiner, p.
140. ft. 42, from Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Miinchen:
Max Hueber, 1960), p. 558: “Eine Realitat der Umwelt. . . kann in zwei Ganzheitsgraden
abgebildet werden: entweder in exakter, jedes Detail nachbildender genauer Vollstandig-
keit ganz entsprechend der Realitat selbst . . . oder in raffend-akzentuierender Ganz-
heit. . . . in der das Detail nicht so selir der Realitat verpflichtet ist, als vielmehr eine Funk-
tion der Ganzheit ist.“