Gripla - 20.12.2010, Síða 48

GRIPLA48
Comparison between parallel texts used to fill lacunae in AM 382 4to
in the 2002 edition of Biskupa sögur, with the actual space that is missing
from AM 382 4to in these sections has shown that sometimes the recon-
structed text passages would not have fit in or exceeded the space avail-
able.101 This suggests that the miracles in AM 382 4to were not necessarily
in the same order as in other versions of Þorláks saga helga, Jarteinabók I, or
Jarteinabók II. The place of the epilogue, however, is a given. The poet of
the Latin praise poem clearly states that he wants to record all of Þorlákr’s
miracles. Considering the thematic connections and similar terminology of
the Latin praise poem in AM 382 4to, the prologue of the B-version and
the epilogue of Jarteinabók II, it is reasonable to assume that most or all of
the miracles in the so-called Jarteinabók II along with the epilogue origi-
nally belonged to the B-redaction of Þorláks saga helga. The manuscript
AM 382 4to preserved a complete edition of Þorlákr’s vita and miracles,
preceded by the carmen Latinum and most likely concluded with the epi-
logue of the so-called Jarteinabók II.102 The correspondence between the
initial poem and the concluding prosody, give the edition a framework,
juxtaposing the learned Latin language with the vernacular, which even
though it ‘falters in deformed and rude words’ according to the poet, was
chosen, nonetheless, to record Þorlákr’s vita and miracles and preach them
to the public.
The status of the Latin verses at the beginning of the B-redactions
seems to be comparable to the stanzas of Latin poetry commonly printed
at the beginning of humanist treatises, in that it serves to guarantee the
learnedness of the publication. Aware that he was reworking a vernacular
translation of Þorlákr’s Latin vita, the editor of AM 382 4to may have felt
101 Fahn, “Revealing the Secrets,” 27–44, especially 33–32 and 34–36.
102 The gathering of AM 382 4to, which includes the Latin poem on fol. 1r, originally cons-
isted of four bifolia. Only one bifolium is preserved. From this it can be concluded that
three leaves preceded the Latin praise poem (Fahn, “Revealing the Secrets,” 28–29).
Guðbrandur Vigfússon suggests that the first leaf of the manuscript was presumably
empty (Guðbrandur Vigfússon, Biskupa sögur I, LXIII), but considering the value of
vellum, it is unlikely that all three leaves would have been left blank. The complete
edition, consisting of the poem, the saga and the collection of miracles, may have included
a table of contents or an illustration of St Þorlákr. The drawing may have been similar to
one of two seated bishops in Holm perg. fol. No. 5, containing sagas of Icelandic bishops
(Jón Helgason, Byskupa sǫgur. MS Perg. fol. No. 5 in the Royal Library of Stockholm, 7;
Guðbrandur Vigfússon, Biskupa sögur I, XXX).