Gripla - 2019, Page 225

225
the name of Samuel. Hence it is very easy to compare with this name that
of Guðbrandur, which is composed of the two elements, Guð “God” and
brandur “sword.” Regarding Guðbrandur’s vocation, the author recalls
four significant events in which he is comparable to Samuel. He reminds
the reader that, according to Joseph, Samuel had four vocations from
God during one night when he was twelve years of age. Guðbrandur also
had four vocations, and while these were not in the same night or at the
same age as Samuel, it is nevertheless the idea of darkness which becomes
the basis of Arngrímur’s comparison. It was still night when God called
Guðbrandur, then a young boy of twelve or fourteen, from his sheep like
another David or Eli from his plough, to the Latin school of Hólar, where
he was soon promoted to assistant teacher before going to the University
of Copenhagen for further studies. It was like a second vocation when
he was summoned to become headmaster of the Latin school of Skálholt
in South Iceland, and by a third vocation he was ordained pastor of the
church at Breiðabólstaður in the Northwest of the country. What may be
regarded as the fourth vocation was his elevation to the Bishopric of Hólar.
The third field of comparison deals with the disobedience and slander
which Guðbrandur had to suffer among his own people, just like Moses
and Samuel. The author does not want to return to this painful part of the
narrative, which he had broken off a little before, but says that he has to
mention one point before leaving the story of Samuel. Here the basis of the
comparison between Samuel and Guðbrandur is taken from their repec-
tive involvement in secular affairs. The prophet, who was a judge for forty
years, was severely resented by the Jewish people, when they chose a king
against the will of God and thereby became a burden to Him. Something
similar happened to Guðbrandur. As he had sworn an oath to the king at
his episcopal ordination to consider the well-being of the people and sup-
port the common law and custom of the country, he inevitably became
involved in secular affairs, thereby arousing wrath and enmity among state
officials. This led to his being disgraced before the king’s representatives
and even the king himself. But thanks to the goodness of his cause and his
trust in God, he always withstood this hostility enjoying obvious royal
favour to the very end of his life. After these remarks Arngrímur declares
that he will now end his comparisons and continue the commemorative
speech, oratio parentalis, which he has already begun.
TO TELL THE TRUTH – BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH