Gripla - 2019, Blaðsíða 238

GRIPLA238
of letters showing that Jón Sigmundsson had given these estates to the
Catholic Bishop Gottskálk to atone for serious offences. Panicstriken at
first, Guðbrandur and Arngrímur backed down and lost the case. Later,
when they obtained permission by royal warrant to examine these letters,
they discovered that they were forgeries. An enraged Guðbrandur renewed
his attacks, his anger appearing most clearly in three pamphlets written
and published in 1592, 1595 and 1608. The bishop succeded in having the
letters officially recognized as forgeries, but the estates were not made
over to the descendants of Jón Sigmundsson as the case was thought too
complicated to allow their restoration. Although the bishop in his fury had
transgressed the limits of decent behaviour so badly that in 1605 he was
reprimanded by King Christian IV (1577–1648), he continued his fight
to have the case reopened. This finally irritated the king so much that
in 1620 Guðbrandur almost lost his bishopric, and was probably spared
only because of his age. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to pay a heavy
fine ratified by the king on 11th May 1622, which amounted to two-thirds
of the property restored to him as a result of his lawsuits. In spite of his
advanced age the bishop’s bellicose nature remained untamed and in the
following year, 1623, Guðbrandur tried once again to find a reason for a
new lawsuit, asking Arngrímur to join him. This time Arngrímur politely
but firmly refused.
If we compare the historical facts of Guðbrandur’s long-lasting feud
with the vague information found in Athanasia, it is evident that Arn-
grímur succeded very well in concealing the late bishop’s most embar-
rassing actions. The hints dropped by Arngrímur, as described above,
give the correct impression that Guðbrandur had to fight for the rights
of the Church and the fairly precise reference to the chapter on Fredrik
II in Crymogæa is merely further proof. On the other hand, Arngrímur
does not refer to the following chapter in Crymogæa on Christian IV,
which mentions Guðbrandur’s lawsuits to recover the property of his
maternal grandfather. It is hard to believe that this was due to forgetful-
ness on Arngrímur’s part rather than being deliberate. However, the most
striking proof of his intention to cover up this affair is his reference to a
book, Crymogæa, which was published in 1609, several years before the
bishop’s humiliating defeat. Thus even the most inquisitive of foreign
readers would have found it extremely difficult to gather any accurate