Gripla - 01.01.1993, Blaðsíða 249

ABBOT ARNGRÍMR'S GUÐMUNDAR SAGA BISKUPS 249
mundr’s banishment from the see as he is about the sufferings inflicted
upon himself by Sighvatr. For these reasons, Þórðr demands, as a pre-
condition to a reconciliation with Sighvatr, that Guðmundr be allowed
to return to his see. In íslendinga saga, there is none of this. Without
explication, the stipulation about Guðmundr’s return is linked to an
arbitration agreement. The wording thus allows the inference that
Þórðr and his party proposed and that Sturla, with the consent of Sig-
hvatr, agreed to allow Guðmundr to proceed to his see (ch. 62, p. 318).
Thus Arngrímr fudges the record by substituting Sighvatr as Þórðr’s
main adversary in the suit. He also embellishes the long-range results
of the accord. He alleges that, from this time on, Sturla was steadfast
in his friendship with Guðmundr (ch. 67, pp. 388-90). Nothing was fur-
ther frorn the truth. In the two subsequent meetings recorded by ís-
lendinga saga, Guðmundr was again denied access to his see. In the
second meeting in 1230, there was the risk of conflict. Solely an agree-
ment, concluded again through the good offices of Þórðr Sturluson,
precluded a clash of arms. Also this compact allowed Guðmundr to
pass through Sturla’s domain to his see and included specific allow-
ances for provisions on the journey. This was an agreement between
chieftains on the bishop’s behalf. Not a single word attests to Guð-
mundr’s participation. The third occasion demonstrated Guðmundr’s
impotence in the face of force. Sturla Sighvatsson, his brother Kol-
beinn, and his cousin Órækja Snorrason, drove off the army of paupers
accompanying Guðmundr, but allowed him to return to his see (ís-
lendinga saga, chs. 79, 82, pp. 342, 346). A year later, in 1232, when
Archbishop Sigurðr (1231-52) summoned both Sturla and Sighvatr to
account for their hostility toward Guðmundr, there was still no sign
that Sturla had effected more than a momentary conciliation with
Guðmundr (ch. 88, p. 360).
The decision to send Sturla not only in his own cause, but also as
representative of his father, was, Arngrímr implied, uncanonical. An
impersonal verb in íslendinga saga allows Sturla Þórðarson to avoid
moral comment on the decision: En þat réðst af at Sturla skyldi fara
fyrir þá báða ok leysa mál þeira beggja . . . ‘and this was decided that
Sturla should represent them both and receive absolution for both’
(ch. 88, p. 360). Abbot Arngrímr changed this wording. He blamed
Sighvatr squarely: staðfestir Sighvatr ráð, at Sturla, son hans, skal fara