Gripla - 01.01.1993, Blaðsíða 251

ABBOT ARNGRIMR’S GUÐMUNDAR SAGA BISKUPS
251
Conclusion
According to hagiographic conventions, Arngrímr was not bound to
rules governing historical truth. That he felt, nevertheless, an obliga-
tion to follow the outlines of íslendinga saga, was due to the respect
and to the authority the chronicle enjoyed.53 In part the succinct, if at
times summary, style of íslendinga saga also lent itself to embellish-
ment. Thus details and elaborations could be supplied in the interest
of a higher truth. In part, of course, he subscribed to hagiographic
practice in condensing a series of events. Compared to the theological
substance or import of the events,54 the temporal and geographic
frame was inconsequential. He further imposed the contemporary
viewpoint on Guðmundr’s divisive struggle for recognition of the
church’s liberty. This conflict had been glorius rather than grievous.
The posthumous success of Guðmundr’s mission was an effulgent sign
of his sainthood, as was his character. Guðmundr had a modern cast of
mind. He was indeed vengeful, but also just and merciful.55 Thus
events in the vita are not considered secular happenings, but are im-
bued with and interpreted according to prevailing ecclesiastical think-
ing. 56
in which an opponent of King Sverrir (1152-1202), an archbishop, is likened, contrary to
contemporary iconography, to Lucifer. See also Abbot Odo of Ourscamp’s missive to
Thomas of Becket, in which Henry II is stigmatized as “your Satan,“ quoted by Smalley,
“The Martyr,“ p. 192. Arngrímr indirectly calls Sighvatr a heretic, a term synonymous
with the devil’s offspring in ch. 67, p. 390.
53 See also Jprgen Hpjgaard Jprgensen, “Hagiography and the Icelandic Bishop Sa-
gas,“ Peritia, Journal of the Medieval Academy of Ireland, I (1982), 16, on comparable
use of political, ecclesiastical modes of thought in the B-redaction of the vita on Saint
Þorlákr of Skálholt (1178-93). This version was written probably after 1222 and is pres-
erved in AM 382 4to, ca. 1325. For manuscripts and dating, see P.G. Foote, “Bischofs-
saga,“ Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978),
III, 41. Possibly, Arngrímr knew of attempts by critics and writers of hagiography to
formulate standards for differentiating between historical fact and fiction, as discussed
by Klaus Schreiner, “Discrimen veri acfalsi. Ansatze und Formen der Kritik in der Heil-
igen- und Reliquienverehrung des Mittelalters," Archiv fiir Kulturgeschichte 48 (1966),
1-53.
54 See Schreiner, p. 137.
55 See Ward, for the evolution of the saint’s image from vengeful to merciful.
56 See Friedrich Lotter, “Methodisches zur Gewinnung historischer Erkenntnisse
aus hagiographischen Quellen," Historische Zeitschrift 229 (1979), 314, 356, for the re-