Salustius segir svá - eller gjorde han nå det? Finlesing av Sallusts Bellum Catilina og Rómverja saga i eldre og yngre versjon

Rómverja saga contains translations into Old Norse of the Roman historian Sallust's two monographs Bellum Iugurthinum and Bellum Catilinae, and Lucan's poem Pharsalia, and was put together in Iceland at around 1180 (older version), and later abbreviated (younger version). This paper takes a closer look at the latin text of Bellum Catilinae, and the corresponding parts of both versions of Rómverja saga, taken from the manuscripts AM 595 a-b 4to og AM 226 fol respectively. The purpose is to explore possible features of the treatment of the text pointing to potential motives behind the labour. Starting with a general discussion of text transmission and reception, it goes on to describe the specific historical and cultural environments of Bellum Catilinae (Rome towards the end of the republic) and Rómverja saga (medieval Iceland), and discuss possible motivations for the original translation. Then comes a presentation of the relevant parts of the text from AM 595 a-b 4to, compared with the corresponding text from AM 226 fol. The manuscript AM 595 a-b 4to is rather badly preserved and the text therefore fragmented, but it contains examples of different kinds of textual elements, whose contents are noted and commented upon. Next, examples from the text are grouped and more closely reviewed for each version separately, in relation to correspondence to the source (Sallust's text and the older version, respectively) and possible causes for divergence. This brings on the following conclusions: The older version is a narrative with historical content, rather than historiography as contended by Rudolf Meissner (1910). There is nothing to indicate that the original translator was inspired by reflections on a similarity between the political systems in the Roman republic and in Iceland, as noted by Stefanie Würth (1998). The younger version is abbreviated from the older version. Both Þorbjörg Helgadóttir (1987-88) and Stefanie Würth (1998) note that the younger version seems to have a closer relationship with Sallust's text than the older version. There is only one example of this in the present text, for which better explanations exist, whereas there are many examples that show that a copy of Sallust's text could not have been available to the original editor