Book Read Free

Niorstigningar Saga

Page 12

by Dario Bullitta


  they are obviously not referring to themselves, who at the time of the narration

  have long been dead, but are rather addressing those who shall die after the

  death of Christ to inform them that one day, they shall also enjoy the same faith

  and redemption.

  K XXIV 45/3

  T 102r/16

  A 54v/4–5

  tenens dexteram Adae

  tenens manum dexteram Ade

  toc i hønd Adams oc ⟨ste⟩ upp

  ascendit ab inferis.62

  ascendit ab inferis.63

  or helvite.64

  In this scene, Christ ascends from Hell grasping Adam’s right hand , deliver-

  ing him to Paradise along with the souls of the righteous, finally fulfilling their

  long-awaited redemption. The Majority Text differs from the hybrid redaction

  by omitting the object of the sentence, “manum” (“hand”), and exclusively

  transmitting the adjective “dexteram” (“right”). Although its absence does not

  compromise the logic and meaning of the passage, the word “manum” should

  nevertheless be restored, as it already occurred in this same chapter and in the

  very same context: K XXIV.1/6–7 “tenens autem Dominus manum dexteram

  Adae dixit ad eum” (“Moreover, the Lord, holding the right hand of Adam, said

  to him”). The Icelandic text is also deficient in this regard, omitting the adjec-

  tive “right,” which was also translated along with (“hand”) in the above men-

  tioned passage: A 54v/27–28 “þa toc Dominus i hønd ena høgri Adams oc

  męlti sva” (“Then the Lord took Adam’s right hand of and said this”).

  K XXV 46/13–14

  T 103r/8–9

  A 55r/23–4

  diuinis signis et prodigiis

  preliari cum eo diuinis

  oc beriaz a mot honom meþ

  preliaturi cum eo, et ab eo

  signis et prodigiis et ab eo

  Guþs iarteinom oc tacnom.

  occisi in Hierusalem.65

  occidemur in Iherusalem.66

  Hann mon ocr lata vega ⟨i⟩

  Iorsalaborg.67

  Enoch states the above text in Paradise after Christ’s deliverance of the

  souls of the righteous. It refers to the slaying of the two Christ-like witnesses

  – here identified as Enoch and Elijah – after their testimony as relayed in

  Revelation 11:7–8.68 The hybrid redaction changes the past participle “ab eo

  occisi” (“they [shall be] slain by him”) of the Majority Text with a first person

  66 Niðrstigningar saga

  plural passive, “ab eo occidemur” (“we shall be slain by him”), which is well

  reflected in the Icelandic text A 55r/24 “hann mon ocr lata vega” (“he shall

  slain us in Jerusalem”).

  Minor Variants of T Reflected in A against K and R

  K XXI.2 40/1–2

  R 1ra/22–4

  T 101r/4–5

  A 53v/25–6

  Haec audiens

  Hec audiens omnis

  Hec audi’e’ns

  Guþs helgir er þeir

  omnis multitudo

  multitudo cum uoce

  omnis multitudo

  heyrðo þetta þa męlto

  sanctorum cum uoce

  increpationis dixerunt sanctorum cum uoce

  þeir sva viþ ðær illar

  increpationis dixit ad ad Infernum.70

  increpationis dixerunt vættir.72

  Inferum.69

  ad demones.71

  Whereas the Majority Text transmits the correct reading that refers to Hell

  with its name in the singular “Inferus,” the hybrid recension, and consequently

  the Icelandic translation, depersonifies Inferus, who in the hybrid redaction is

  addressed in the plural as “demones” (“devils”) and rendered in the Icelandic

  text with “illar vættir” (“evil spirits”). Turville-Petre noted this divergence, but

  traced it back to the inventiveness of the Icelandic translator and regarded it as

  one of his literary licenses, instead of postulating his consultation of a different

  Latin source text.73

  The transportation of the figure of Hell into a plurality of devils might have

  been used in the hybrid text as a consequence of the three instances within the

  Majority Text, where Hell refers to his servants: K XX.3 40/13–16 “contremui

  perterritus pauore et omnia impia officia mea simul mecum conturbata sunt”

  (“I was afraid and terrified with fear and all my impious servants were also

  disturbed with me”); K XX1.1 40/8–9 “et dixit Inferus ad sua impia officia”

  (“and Hell said to his impious servants”); K XXII.1 42/1–2 “Hec uidentes

  Inferus et Mors et impia officia eorum cum crudelibus ministris expauerunt”

  (“seeing these things, Hell and Death and their impious servants with the cruel

  ministers were afraid”).74

  K XXI.3 41/3

  R 1rb/8–9

  T 101r/16–17

  A 54r/4–5

  Et facta est uox

  Et facta est uox

  Et facta est iterum

  Þa hafa þeir i annat

  magna ut tonitruum.75 magna ut tonitruum.76 uox magna ut

  sinn heyrþa rødd sva

  tronitrui.77

  micla at scialfa þotte

  helvite allt.78

  This is the second instance of Psalm 24(23):7–9 and the Tollite portas vers-

  es. The hybrid redaction and the Icelandic translation share the presence of the

  adverb of frequency “iterum” (“a second time”) and “i annat sinn” (“a second

  The Latin Source Text Underlying Niðrstigningar saga 67

  time”) while there is no trace of it in the Majority Text and in the Icelandic

  fragment R.

  K XXI.3 41/12–14

  R 1rb/19–22

  T 101r/22–3

  A 54r/11

  Et ipse Dominus

  Et ipse Dominus

  Et ipse Dominus

  Dominus de celo

  de caelo in terris

  de celo in terris

  de celo in terris

  in terram aspexit

  prospexit ut audiret

  perspexit ut

  prospexit ut

  ut audiret gemitus

  gemitum uinculorum audiret gemitum

  audiret gemitus

  compenditorum

  et solueret filios

  uinculatorum et

  compenditorum

  ut solueret filios

  interemptorum.79

  solueret filios

  et solueret filios

  interemptorum.82

  interemptorum.80

  interemptorum.81

  These words, stated by King David in Hell, are directly quoted from Psalm

  101(100):21. The genitive plural “uinculorum” (“of the chains”) is clearly a

  scribal error transmitted by the Majority Text and should therefore be emend-

  ed with the genitive plural of the past participle “uinculatorum” (“of those

  who had been bound in chains”), as found in the Icelandic fragment R. The

  Majority Text and consequently the Icelandic fragment R preserve again an

  older reading, “gemitum uinculatorum” (“the groan of those who had been

  bound in chains”), transmitted in numerous manuscripts of the Vetus Latina.83

  The reading extant in the hybrid redaction and in the Icelandic text “gemitus

  compeditorum” (“the groans of those who had been fettered”) is derived from

  the Vulgate.

  Agreement between K and E against T and A

>   K XX.3 39/1–2

  E 1v/3

  T 100r/3–4

  A 53r/7–8

  Tu mihi dixisti quia

  Þa sagdir mier at

  Tu mihi dixisti ip⟨s⟩e

  Enn þat vitom ver

  ipse est qui mortuos a þessi er sa sialfur er

  est qui mortuos à teát hann hevir menn

  me traxit.84

  dauda menn dro fra

  tulit.86

  marga dauþa af ðer

  mer.85

  teket.87

  The above sentence is stated by Hell when he addresses Satan to express his

  perplexity towards the intrinsic nature of Christ. It suggests that despite his

  human appearance, the power of his divinity had in several instances proven to

  be almighty. Hell laments that even before his death on the cross, Christ had

  been able to resurrect men who were already dead, such as Lazarus.

  Whereas the Majority Text preserves the correct reading “mortuos a me

  traxit” (“dragged away the dead from me”) – implying that the souls were

  snatched out of Hell (Hell being the first person in this sentence) – the com-

  piler of the hybrid text changes this perspective, suggesting that the dead were

  68 Niðrstigningar saga

  ultimately the property of Satan “mortuos ⸌a te⸍ tulit” (“took away the dead

  from you”). The use of the verb “tulit” (“took away”) in the hybrid recension

  was probably influenced by K XX.3/2–4, “Multi enim sunt qui a me hic de-

  tenti sunt qui dum uixerunt in terris a me mortuos tulerunt” (“There are many

  who are held captive here by me who when they lived on earth have taken

  away the dead from me”), and altogether omitted by the hybrid redaction.

  Also worthy of note are the correspondences of the verbs “trahere” (“drag”)

  and “ferre” (“take”), respectively, with the Icelandic “draga” (“drag”) and

  “taka” (“take”), respectively.

  K XXIII.1 43/3

  T 101v/30–102r/1

  R 1vb/7–8

  A 54v/4–5

  dux exterminationis

  dux exterminationis

  dux exterminationis

  dauþa ioforr

  Beelzebub.88

  tricabite Beelzebub.89

  tricapita Beelzebub.90

  þrihofða⟨ð⟩r Bee⟨l⟩

  zebub.91

  Agreement between T, R, and A against K

  The epithet “triceps” (“three-headed”) has been given to Beelzebub in connec-

  tion to Cerberus, the mythological hound guarding the underworld in Greek

  and Roman pagan traditions, and can be traced back to a Good Friday sermon

  by Eusebius of Alexandria.92 However, it is more likely that the compiler of the

  hybrid redaction was acquainted with the “Cerberus triceps inferorum canis”

  (“Cerberus, the three-headed hound of Hell”) mentioned by Augustine in his

  De civitate Dei.93

  The Icelandic compiler is faithful to his source and recalls the image of a

  three-headed devil in chapter XX.1, where he juxtaposes it to the adjective

  which describes Satan as a “seven-headed” dragon, an interpolated reading

  derived from Revelation 12:3 absent in the Majority Text and in the hybrid re-

  daction and peculiar only to the Icelandic translation.94 The compiler specifies

  that Satan may at times also reveal himself with seven or three heads: A

  52v/17–19 “Satan iotunn helvitis høfðingi er stundom er meþ VII høfðom enn

  stundom meþ III enn stundom i drekalike þess er omorlegr er oc ogorlegr oc

  illilegr a allar lunder.”95

  The noun “iotunn” (“giant”) in connection to Satan is an innovation and

  peculiarity of AM 645 4to. It may have come about through a paleographical

  change and confusion of the grapheme clusters - fvrr and - tvnn from an origi-

  nal “iofurr” (“prince”) translating the Latin “princeps” (“prince”). The chang-

  ing of “iofurr”/“iotunn” in this passage may have influenced its subsequent

  employment in chapter XX.1, where Inferus is first introduced in the story and

  The Latin Source Text Underlying Niðrstigningar saga 69

  referred to with the appellative T 99v/15 “preparatorem inferorum” (“preparer

  of Hell”). In the Icelandic translation, Inferus is described as a “host” of evil

  beings, composed of creatures of Nordic mythology and of Christian devils of

  the Latin source: A 52v/19–20 “viþ iotna oc viþ diofla oc viþ rikistroll ⟨oc⟩

  gørvoll þau er i helvite voro” (“with the giants, the devils, the mighty trolls,

  and all of those who were in Hell”). The original reading “prince,” in place of

  the later variant “giant,” is preserved in chapter XXIII.1, where the compiler

  of AM 645 4to twice translates the Latin “dux” (“prince, duke”) and “prin-

  ceps” (“prince”) with the Icelandic “iofurr” (“prince”): T 101v/30 “dux exter-

  minationis” (“Prince of destruction”) is translated as A 54v/4–5 “dauþa ioforr”

  (“Prince of Death”) and T 102r/9–10 “O princeps omnium malorum pater

  impiorum” (“O Prince of all evil and father of the wicked”) as A 54v/13

  “Satan ioførr helvitis oc allz illz” (“Satan, Prince of Hell and of all evil”).

  K XXIII.1 43/7–9

  T 102r/3–4

  R 1vb/12–15

  A 54v/7–9

  Ecce iam iste Iesus

  Ecce iam iste Ihesus

  Etiam iste Iesus sue

  Þat ma nu of sia at

  diuinitatis suae

  diuinitatis sue fulgore diuinitatis fulgore

  Christus fer her nu oc

  fulgore fugat omnes

  fugauit omnes

  fugauit omnes

  rekr a braut meþ liose

  tenebras mortis, et

  tenebras mortis et

  tenebras mortis et

  guþdoms sins dauþa

  firmum carcerum

  ima carceris claustra

  ima claustra carceris

  myrcr oc braut byrgi

  confregit.96

  confregit.97

  confregit.98

  var øll.99

  The reading “firmum carcerum confregit” (“He has broken the steadfast

  prisons”) transmitted by the Majority Text seems to have caused a scribal error

  during one of its subsequent transcriptions. A second reviser of the Majority

  Text has substituted the adjective in the accusative form “firmum” (“stead-

  fast”), which is clearly apposed to the noun “carcerum” (“prison”), also in the

  accusative form, with the less ambiguous noun “claustrum” (“enclosure”). The

  proximity of the two nouns “claustrum” and “carcerum” in the sentence might

  have generated further confusion, so at a certain point, the original object of the

  sentence “carcerum” (“prison”) in the accusative case was perceived as incor-

  rect and was transferred into the genitive case “carceris” (“of the prison”), re-

  ferring to the object “claustra” (“the enclosures of the prison”).

  Subsequently, the noun phrase “claustra carceris” started to be understood

  with the stricter military acception of “claustra” (“defence, fortress, walls”).

  The adjective “ima” (“innermost, deepest”) was added for further specification.

  The Icelandic text mirrors the hybrid text, rendering the Latin “claustrum”

  (“enclosure, fortress”)
with the Icelandic “byrgi” (“enclosure, fortress”).

  5 The Textual Interpolations

  of Niðrstigningar saga

  As has been shown in chapter 4, the difficulty in assigning a particular source

  to certain passages of Niðrstigningar saga is mostly due to the fact that its text

  is not a translation sensu stricto but rather an adaptation and reformulation of

  the Latin apocryphon, involving profound elaboration of the original narrative

  fabric. Numerous textual variants and departures from the most plausible un-

  derlying sources must be ascribed to the translator’s own editorial predilections

  and to no other particular source. Besides adjusting lexicon and sentence struc-

  ture to his taste, the compiler felt compelled to integrate into the original plot

  substantial narrative details extraneous to the Latin apocryphon. These second-

  ary additions are all biblical and patristic in nature, and some of them are so

  intricately woven into the primitive narrative framework that the task of iden-

  tifying and sourcing them may at times feel overwhelming.

  Throughout the narrative, the Icelandic compiler alters the regular course of

  the Latin text four times, introducing the description of the gates of Paradise as

  guarded by a cherub, substantially augmenting the antithetical description of

  Christ and then of Satan, and inserting a section relating to the epic and figura-

  tive victory of Christ over the Devil. All the interpolated sections, here sur-

  veyed in their order of appearance in the Icelandic text, are signalled by

  editorial notes or additional sentences, which introduce sudden changes or re-

  covery of the narrative.

  The Gates of Paradise

  At the beginning of the Descensus, the original Latin text focuses on Seth’s

  journey to Paradise in a quest for the Oil of Mercy to anoint the body of his

  father Adam, who had long lain infirm and in terrible pain as a consequence of

  The Textual Interpolations of Niðrstigningar saga 71

  his fall from Paradise.1 At the news of Christ’s baptism in the river Jordan, an-

  nounced in Hell by John the Baptist himself, Adam asks his son Seth to relate

  to the patriarchs his quest to Paradise for the Oil of Mercy. At the beginning of

  Seth’s narrative, after a mention of the gates of Paradise – “Þat var qvat Seth þa

  er ec for eyren⟨dis⟩ foþor mins at ec com of siþir til paradisar hliþs”2 (“It oc-

  curred, said Seth, when I travelled on my father’s errand, that I came at last to

  the gates of Paradise”), the Icelandic compiler inserts additional narrative ma-

  terial describing the fierce scenario at its entrance:

 

‹ Prev