Gripla - 2022, Side 393

391
615 f 4to is just such a misattribution, or perhaps the oft-repeated claim
that Jón Magnússon was the author is the real misattribution, with the
information provided in AM 615 f 4to being a fleeting glimpse of the true
state of affairs. Potentially contributing to the hazy picture surrounding
Grobbians rímur’s authorship is the possibility that a conscious and active
effort was made to suppress information about its author. The poem itself
attests to an author’s choice not to reveal themself, “að enginn viti Authors
heiti.”76 The crudity of much of the content provides a comprehensible
motive for a shy author. Moreover, Katelin Parsons’ recent work on
Guðmundur’s poetic anthologies provides ample evidence that both he and
his family played a significant role in curating his literary production. One
aspect of this is that “Guðmundur seems to have deliberately excluded the
carnivalesque from his legacy as a poet.”77 Given all this, it is feasible that
Guðmundur might have concealed his authorship and that he and his de-
scendants suppressed any association of it with his more respectable output.
An answer to the second question is dependent upon us determin-
ing what type of literature Grobbians rímur is. Since the ultimate aim of
the rímur seems to be didactic and specifically aimed at the schooling of
young people, we can say that it falls within the broad genre of conduct
literature. On the other hand, since its method of instructing is through
description of the inverse of good conduct, in a way which may be consid-
ered entertaining, one can say that it has a claim to be considered amongst
satirical literature, especially that which uses grotesque imagery and bawdy
humour. It is, also, an example of a work dependent upon, although not a
direct translation of, writing from early modern Germany.
With regard to the first genre, we know for a fact that Guðmundur
took an interest in conduct literature: for example, his poetic translation
which Páll Vídalín attributed to Guðmundur but which were actually by Sigurður Jónsson
of Presthólar (224).
76 Note that this quote, mentioned at the start of the article, is the final verse of fitt IV and so
is absent in the three-fitt version.
77 Parsons, “Songs for the End of the World,” 223. One might, however, speculate about the
contents of the aforementioned non-extant third poetic anthology of Guðmundur’s work.
It was supposed to contain more secular material and thus might speak against suppression
of “the carnivalesque.” Not all secular literature is, however, necessarily coarse or grotesque,
and it is hard to make assessments of its contents in absentia. Moreover, the fact that it is
non-extant might point to suppression, even if the original act of gathering the poems
together implies a differing impulse.
GROTESQUE ADVICE