Niorstigningar Saga

by Dario Bullitta

  either monogenetic or polygenetic, separative error, which separates A, B, and

  D further from C.62 All three cases indicate that manuscript C adheres more

  closely to the Latin text.

  In chapter XXI.2, after Satan is cast out of Hell and the patriarchs sing the

  Tollite portas verses derived from Psalm 24(23):7–963 in chorus, exhorting Hell

  to open its large gates for the arrival of Christ, King David recalls to the patri-

  archs that when he was alive on earth, he pronounced the words commem-

  orating the power of the Redeemer derived from the well-known Psalm

  107(106):15–16. The reading of C 28r/26, “er ek var lifs ꜳ iordu” (“when I was

  alive on earth”), is certainly the closest variant to that of the Latin text, which

  in this place reads T99r/7–8 “Nonne cum essem uiuus in terris predixi uobis”

  (“When I was alive on earth, did I not foretell you”), whereas the reading

  shared by A, B, and D, “þa er ec lifða” (“when I lived”), seems to transmit a

  considerable trivialization of the original reading.

  A 53v/27–8

  B 11v/25–6

  D 6v/22

  C 28ra/26

  T 99r/7–8

  þa er ec lifða64

  þa er ec lifþa65

  þá er eg lifda66

  er ek var lifs ꜳ

  cum essem uiuus

  iordu67

  in terris68

  In chapter XXVI, after the patriarchs have been freed from the bondage of

  sin and have been delivered to Paradise, they see the Good Thief Dismas walk-

  ing towards them and bearing a cross on his shoulders. The lectio difficilior is

  again transmitted in C, where the present participle C 28vb/15 “hafandi” (“hav-

  ing, carrying”) reflects the present participle of the Latin text T 103r/18 “por-

  tans” (“carrying”). On the other hand, A, B, and D share a considerably less

  learned relative clause, “sa hafði” (“who had, carried”), formed by the demon-

  strative pronoun “sá” and the praeteritum of the verb “hafa.”

  A 55r/27

  B 14r/13

  D 9r/9

  C 28vb/15

  T 103r/18

  sa hafði69

  sa hafði70

  hann hafde71

  hafandi72

  portans73

  In chapter XXVI, after the patriarchs’ encounter with Dismas, A, B, and D

  omit a clause of the text which survives in C 28v/15–16, “Þa er Guds helgir

  sꜳ þenna man spurdu þeir” (“But when the saints of God saw that man, they

  The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 45

  asked”), translating the Latin T, 103r/11–12 “Uidentes autem sancti omnes

  dixerunt ad eum” (“Moreover, when all the saints saw [him], they told him”).

  A 55r/28

  B 14r/14

  D 9r/10

  C 28vb/15–16

  T 103r/11–12

  om.

  om.

  om.

  Þa er Guds

  Uidentes autem

  helgir sꜳ þenna

  sancti omnes

  man spurdu

  dixerunt ad

  þeir74

  eum75

  Possible Significant Errors of A, C, and D

  Manuscripts A, C, and D share three possible conjunctive and separative er-

  rors76 and a single separative error77 against the readings of B, whose text seems

  in all cases to be more accurate.78

  Nevertheless, the accuracy of B cannot be conclusive evidence in determin-

  ing its authority, as the first two readings belong to the fourth interpolation and

  are consequently absent in the Latin source text T.79 However, they are also

  absent in the texts of Revelation 12:9 and Augustine’s Sermo 265D, from

  where the interpolation ultimately derives.80 As a matter of fact, it is more like-

  ly that the first three conjunctive errors presented here are in fact the original

  readings transmitted in the common ancestor of A, B, C, and D, and that the

  diverging readings of B are the result of a subsequent correction of its text,

  possibly ex ingenio, as suggested below.

  In chapter XXI.1, within the fourth and last interpolation of the Icelandic

  text, which relates to the transformation of Satan into a terrifying dragon and

  to his travel to Jerusalem, where Christ had just been crucified, B 11v/12 re-

  ports that Satan “flo hann þangat” (“and he flew there”), whereas A, C, and D

  have “oc for þangat” (“and [he] travelled there”). Since Satan had just acquired

  the shape of a great dragon, it is plausible that the scribe of B may have de-

  cided to correct the original generic verb “for” (“travelled”) with “flo” (“flew”),

  specifying that Satan’s travel from Hell to Jerusalem was a flight rather than

  simple journey.

  A 53v/14

  C 28ra/11

  D 6v/3–4

  B 11v/12

  T 101r

  oc for þangat81

  ok for þangat82

  fór Satan

  oc flo hann

  –

  þangad83

  þangat84

  Again, in the above-mentioned interpolation of chapter XXI.1, manuscripts

  A, C, and D may transmit a possible trivialization of the text. Their narratives

  describe how at the sight of Christ’s dead body on the cross, Satan wanted to

  46 Niðrstigningar saga

  “tear away the soul” of Christ (“slita ondina”), whereas B 11v/12–13 reads “to

  steal the soul” (“slęgia ǫndina”). The verb “slægia,” literally meaning “to clean

  out fish,” found in B (here meaning “to steal”) may be an embellishment of the

  verb “slita” (“to tear away”) shared by the rest of the tradition. The latter verb

  may have been perceived as either erroneous or inappropriate with reference to

  the soul of Christ. Within this connection, it should be noted that the fourth

  interpolation was probably inspired by Augustine’s Sermo 265D, which relates

  to the Devil being “greedy and avid for the death” of Christ (“Mortis avidus

  diabolus fuit, mortis avarus diabolus fuit”), and that rather than aiming to steal

  the soul of Christ, Satan was craving to “swallow” it (“devorare”/“gløpa”) like

  a voracious animal.85 Hence, the more dramatic verb “slita” (“to tear away”)

  may have been the one present in the common ancestor of A, B, C, and D,

  which was subsequently revised in B with the considerably less incisive verb

  “slægia” (“to steal”).

  A 53v/14–15

  C 28ra/12

  D 6v/5

  B 11v/12–13

  T 101r

  slita ondina

  slita mundu

  slíta ỏndina frá

  slęgia aundina

  –

  þegar fra

  aundina fra

  hỏnum88

  fra honum89

  honom86

  Ihesu87

  In the above-mentioned chapter XXI, when the patriarchs encounter the

  Good Thief in Paradise carrying his heavy cross, B 14r/13 reads “otirligr maþr”

  (“wretched man”), which precisely renders the Latin T 103r/11 “vir miserri-

  mus” (“most wretched/miserable man”). This adjective was employed in the

  Latin text to describe his physical appearance, as he is later asked by the patri-

  archs T 103r/12, “Quis es tu anime quia uisio tua latronis est?” (
“Whoever are

  you, O soul, for your face is that of a thief?”). A, C, and D, on the other hand,

  seem to transmit a common error, “maþr allosęlligr” (“most joyless/ill-favored

  man”), that does not fit the context and could possibly have been an attempt of

  the first redactor to calque the Latin “miserrimus.” As a matter of fact, at the

  moment of narration, Dismas is neither sorrowful nor ill-favoured, since he

  was granted entrance to Paradise before any other mortal soul (except for

  Enoch and Elijah), and being in Paradise, he has already reached a state of

  bliss. Nevertheless, “otirligr” (“inglorious”) could possibly be a second inter-

  vention of the scribe of B, possibly unsatisfied with the less elegant adjective

  “allosæligr” (“most joyless”) shared by the rest of the tradition.

  A 55r/27

  C 28vb/14–15

  D 9r/9

  B 14r/13

  T 103r/11

  maþr

  maþr

  madr allsiálligr92

  otirligr maþr93

  vir miserrimus94

  allosęlligr90

  allosælligr91

  The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 47

  Although unstable in all three manuscripts, the reading below can be count-

  ed as a separative error of A, C, and D against B. In chapter XXV, the patriarchs

  encounter Enoch and Elijah, who had been already living in Paradise, and in-

  form them of the prophecy foretelling their future death at the hands of the

  Antichrist. A, C, and D transmit a secondary reading, which specifies that be-

  fore fighting the Antichrist, they shall first come down to earth from Paradise:

  A 55r/22–3 “Enn þa munom viþ ðanga⟨t⟩ coma” (“And then we shall come

  there”). Being a separative error, this omission may have aroused indepen-

  dently from that of the Latin source text T.

  A 55r/22–3

  C 28vb/10

  D 9r/3

  B 14r/9

  T 103r/8

  Enn þa munom

  Enn þa skulum

  Vid fỏrum þa til

  om.

  om.

  viþ ðanga⟨t⟩

  vid fara nídr i

  ydar97

  coma95

  heiminn96

  Possible Significant Errors of A and B

  There is a single instance in which A may share with B a monogenetic, con-

  junctive, and separative error against D.

  In chapter XXIV.3, Habakkuk recalls one of his canticles in praise of God,

  as related in Habakkuk 3:13: “existi in salutem populi tui ad liberandos electos

  tuos” (“you came out for the salvation of your people and set free your chosen

  ones”).98 The text of D in this case transmits the correct reading, “útvalda þina”

  (“your chosen ones”), using the past participle of the verb “útvelja” (“to choose

  / to select”) reflecting the Latin “electos” (“chosen ones”). A and B, on the

  other hand, transmit a significantly different reading “valaþa ðina” (“your poor

  ones”), which differs considerably from the source, T 102v/21 “ad liberandos

  electos tuos” (“to set free your chosen ones”). However, being a section of text

  extracted from a renowned canticle, this reading may have been easily emend-

  ed ex ingenio in D (or in its antigraph) during the time of their transcriptions.

  A 55r/8

  B 13v/14

  D 8v/9

  C

  T 102v/21

  at leysa valaþa

  at leysa valaþa

  ad leisa útvalda

  lacuna

  ad liberandos

  ðina99

  þina100

  þina101

  electos tuos

  Possible Significant Errors of A and C

  A single monogenetic, conjunctive, and separative error is shared by A and C

  against B in the Latin text of Psalm 107(106):15–16, transmitted in chapter

  XXI.2. The third person plural subjunctive of the original text, T 101r/8–9

  48 Niðrstigningar saga

  “Confiteantur Domino” (“They would confess to the Lord”), is well preserved

  in B but corrupted into a second person plural, indicative as “Confitemini

  Domino” (“You confess to the Lord”), in both A and C. This reading, as in the

  previous case, being a section of a well-known psalm, may have been easily

  emended by the scribe of B during the time of its transcription.

  A 53v/29

  C 28r/27

  B 12r/1

  D 6v/23

  T 101r/8–9

  Confitemini

  Confitemini

  Confiteantur

  om.

  Confiteantur

  Domino102

  Domino103

  Domino104

  Domino105

  Errors of A and D

  In a single case, A and D share a monogenetic, conjunctive, and separative er-

  ror,106 which further highlights their filiation from a common ancestor and

  separates them from B and C. Moreover, there are two separative errors that

  separate them from B.107

  In chapter XXVI, the Latin text relates that the Good Thief was accompa-

  nied in Paradise by the archangel Michael, who exhorts him to wait there for

  the arrival of the patriarchs, who will shortly thereafter be freed from Hell.

  Michael pronounces the words “modicum sustine” (“wait a while”), which are

  still well preserved in both B and C: “scalltu biþa litla stund” (“you shall wait

  a while”). On the other hand, A and D seem to share a trivialization in substi-

  tuting the second person plural “scalltu” (“you shall”), with the first person

  plural of the modal “skulu” (“shall”): “scolom biþa litla stund” (“we [two]

  shall wait a while”).

  A 55v/9

  D 9v/4–5

  B 14v/5

  C 28vb/27

  T 103r/23

  scolom biþa litla skulum vid bída

  scalltu biþa litla

  skaltu nu bida

  modicum

  stund108

  litla stund109

  stund110

  litla stund111

  sustine112

  In chapter XVIII.1, A and D omit one of the five invectives pronounced by

  Hell against Satan, T 102r/1 “sputum iustorum” (“spittle of the just”), which is

  still preserved in B, where it is rendered more metaphorically as “hrøptr af

  monnom” (“defamed by men”).113

  A 54v/5

  D 7v/12

  B 12v/21

  C

  T 102r/1

  om.

  om.

  hrøptr af

  lacuna

  sputum

  monnom114

  iustorum115

  The Manuscript Filiation of Niðrstigningar saga 49

  In chapter XXIV.3, A and D omit the conclusive line of the prophecy voiced

  by Micah after the deliverance of the patriarchs from Hell, T 102v/28 “sicut

  iurasti patribus nostris” (“as you promised to our fathers”), derived from Micah

  7:18–20. The clause is fully extant in B: “sva sem sem þu svaraþir feþrom

  orom” (“as you promised to our fathers”).

  A

  D

  B 13v/21–2

  C

  T 102v/28

  om.

  om.

  sva sem sem þu

  lacuna

  sicut iurasti

  svaraþir feþrom


  patribus

  orom116

  nostris117

  Stemmata Codicum

  Turville-Petre’s Stemma

  As mentioned above, Turville-Petre rightly believed that the four medieval

  manuscripts A, B, C, and E derived from a common original but that E must

  have been thoroughly emended and revised on the basis of the Latin text of

  Evangelium Nicodemi. He also maintained that although the “first” and the

  “second” interpolations (here referred to as the “third” and the “fourth”) de-

  rived from the older redaction were intentionally maintained in E, the subse-

  quent modifications of readings applied to E created a new textual facies

  considerably different from that of A, B, and C. These considerations led him

  to suspect contamination in the tradition of Niðrstigningar saga.118 Taking his

  suggestions into account, his stemma could be similar to that proposed by Odd

  Einar Haugen, as illustrated in the following section.

  Aho’s Stemma

  In his PhD dissertation, Gary L. Aho agrees with Turville-Petre in that the four

  medieval manuscripts A, B, C, and E derive from a common original transla-

  tion X, but he also argues that it is not necessary to postulate a contamination

  in the tradition. He suggests instead that the text of X is more faithfully pre-

  served in E, which stands alone in a single branch of the tradition, and con-

  cludes that this may be the reason why its readings are so remarkably close to

  the Latin text. He also maintains that A, B, C, and D all derive from a second-

  ary, now lost, redaction of X (indicated as X1), which has further separated

  them from the Latin text.119 His stemma is implemented in Figure 2.

  50 Niðrstigningar saga

  Latin A

  X (First translation)

  X (First redaction)

  E

  1

  A

  B

  C

  Figure 2. Gary L. Aho’s stemma

  Haugen’s Stemma

  Odd Einar Haugen, who has conducted the most thorough and comprehensive

  analysis of the Niðrstigningar saga stemmatics, also recognizes that E should

  be separated from A, B, C, and D and that it should be counted alone as a dif-

  ferent translation. On the basis of the data discussed in his survey, Haugen

  concludes that both Aho’s and Turville-Petre’s stemmata are plausible filia-

  tions of the tradition of Niðrstigningar saga and that internal evidence is, in

  this case, insufficient to reach any conclusive decisions. He then resorts to ex-

  ternal evidence, such as the high presence of archaisms in both A and B, and

  the dates of the four medieval manuscripts, which naturally indicate that the

  revision was made on E rather than on A and B, since A and B are the oldest