Reading the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga in Its Manuscript Contexts (The Northern Medieval World) 1501518534, 9781501518539

Citation preview

Daniel C. Najork Reading the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga in Its Manuscript Contexts

The Northern Medieval World

On the Margins of Europe Editorial Board Carolyne Larrington, St. John’s College, Oxford (Chair) Oren Falk, Cornell University Dawn Hadley, University of York Kate Heslop, University of California, Berkeley Jana Schulman, Western Michigan University Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, Universitetet i Oslo

Daniel C. Najork

Reading the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga in Its Manuscript Contexts

ISBN 978-1-5015-1853-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-1414-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-1412-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2020948127 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Copenhagen, Arnamagnæan Collection, AM 232 fol, 55r. Photograph: Suzanne Reitz. Published with permission from the Arnamagnæan Institute Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Copenhagen, Arnamagnæan Collection, AM 232 fol. 55r. Photograph: Suzanne Reitz. Published with permission from the Arnamagnæan Institute.

Dedicated to the memory of my brother, Jeffrey C. Najork November 17, 1975 – December 23, 2017

Acknowledgements Much of the research for this project was first completed during graduate school and I would like to acknowledge the funding of University Graduate Fellowships at Arizona State University and the generous George and Collice Portnoff Endowed Fellowship in Comparative Literature. I am also grateful to my dissertation committee Robert E. Bjork, Heather Maring, and Robert Sturges and to Richard G. Newhauser and Rosalynn Voaden for their continued support and mentorship. They have all read various parts of this project in its different stages and have provided invaluable feedback. My graduate school colleagues also deserve thanks, both for their friendship during the often isolating experience of graduate school and for their willingness to read and comment on drafts and to discuss ideas. The Arnamagnæan Institute in Copenhagen, the Stofnun Árna Magnússonar í íslenskum fræðum in Reykjavík, and the Kungliga biblioteket in Stockholm have all welcomed me into their libraries to examine manuscripts. I would like to thank Anne Mette Hansen, Matthew Driscoll, Suzanne Reitz, Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, Ólöf Benediktsdóttir, and Patrik Granholm in particular for meeting with me, guiding me through their special collections, and assisting me with acquiring photographs of manuscripts. Shannon Cunningham, acquisitions editor for the Northern Medieval World series, is due special gratitude. It was through her encouragement and guidance that I developed the project and submitted a proposal to Medieval Institute Publication’s Northern Medieval World series. Her help and patience have been indispensable throughout this process. I’d like to also thank the editorial board of the Northern Medieval World series (Chair Carolyne Larrington, Oren Falk, Dawn Hadley, Kate Heslop, Jana Schulman, and Jón Viðar Sigurðsson) for their interest in the project, their feedback, and their promotion of new work in the field. I am grateful to be able to publish in a series that welcomes new approaches to Old Norse-Icelandic literature and culture and has published books by authors whose work I always look forward to reading. Christine Henschel, Michaela Göbels, Jonathan Hoare, Rebecca Straple, David Jüngst, Theresa M. Whitaker, and the editorial teams at De Gruyter and Medieval Institute Publications helped me throughout this process and I’m thankful for their assistance. I am also indebted to Natalie M. Van Deusen, who reviewed this manuscript. Her expertise in Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography, on the manuscripts of saints’ lives, and her insightful comments have significantly improved the book and helped me identify many missing connections. Any remaining errors or oversights are my own.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-202

X

Acknowledgements

To my family, of course, I owe significant thanks and want to acknowledge my love and appreciation for them. To my dear wife Vivien—partner, friend, extoller, critic—thank you for bringing so much joy, adventure, and density into my life. Our little family delights, comforts, and encourages me. To our beloved son Theodore, thank you for your editorial assistance. I completed the revisions for this book in your first months of life, often with you sleeping on my chest. I’m looking forward to watching you grow up and to imparting to you a desire to be kind, to know, to be curious, and to investigate. To our four-legged housemates Olive and Oscar, you are both the greatest companions and a most welcome distraction from writing. It is difficult to estimate and express my indebtedness to my parents, Chris and Linda Najork. They made many sacrifices early in life (as did my grandparents) for the benefit of me and my brother. I will be forever grateful for their love, guidance, and encouragement. Finally, I want to acknowledge my brother Jeff Najork, to whose memory this book is dedicated. Our closeness is hard to put into words. We not only grew up together but also lived together for five years as adults. I am deeply grateful to have been embraced by Jeff’s generosity of spirit, his tenderness, friendship, and his loyalty for most of my life. Jeff died on December 23, 2017, two weeks after Shannon and Medieval Institute Publications informed me that my book proposal had been accepted. Though most readers will likely not notice, the range of emotions I and my family experienced as we grieved his loss will always be painfully obvious to me in this book. Despite everything else it accomplishes, two interconnected threads in Maríu saga emerged as I read and reread the text. The saga is of course dedicated to interpreting scriptural mysteries and identifying proper devotion to the Virgin Mary, but it is also, in many ways, concerned with how to live a good life and how to prepare for and think about death. The saga confronts a number of questions that have been ever-present on my mind during the writing of this book: How should one live? What defines a good life? What does it mean to die (to cease to be)? What happens to us after death? To what extent is death to be celebrated and mourned? How should we commemorate the dead? How significant is the practice and place of burial? The last two chapters of the book, because they deal precisely with the ways in which the saga and the manuscripts preserving it deal with the complicated matter of death and what comes next, proved to be the most challenging and yet cathartic for me.

Contents Acknowledgements Introduction

IX

1

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience) in the Skálholt Lectionaries AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. 47 Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”: Explicatory and Compilatory Techniques in the Manuscripts of Maríu saga 67 Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary and Theological Disagreement in Manuscript AM 232 fol. 91 Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife in the Manuscripts of Maríu saga 113 Conclusion

131

Appendix: The Manuscripts of Maríu saga Bibliography Index

157

143

135

19

Introduction In his 1953 study The Origins of Icelandic Literature Gabriel Turville-Petre offered what has become an oft-cited, and re-qualified, assessment of the importance of translated saints’ lives for medieval Icelandic literature:1 They were the first written biographies which the Icelanders came to know. The Icelanders learned from them how biographies and wonder-tales could be written in books. Thus, they helped the Icelanders to develop a literary style in their own language, and gave them the means to express their own thoughts through the medium of letters. In a word, the learned literature did not teach the Icelanders what to think or what to say, but it taught them how to say it. It is unlikely that the sagas of kings and of Icelanders, or even the sagas of ancient heroes, would have developed as they did unless several generations of Icelanders had first been trained in hagiographic narrative.2

Turville-Petre’s conclusion on the origins of Icelandic literature can certainly be criticized as an oversimplification that overlooks a number of matters, but hagiography does appear to have been, if surviving manuscripts are to be believed, the earliest type of writing committed to parchment in medieval Iceland and has long been acknowledged as an important step in the development of the Íslendingasögur.3 While scrutiny of medieval Icelandic translations from Latin hagiography – and their potential connections to Old NorseIcelandic literature more generally – has increased in the last few decades, the transmission and composition of saints’ legends remain mostly understudied aspects of Old Norse-Icelandic literary culture.4 The present study is

1 Some of the remarks in this introduction have been adapted from my article “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment in the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga,” in Catastrophes and the Apocalyptic in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. Robert Bjork (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 15–28. 2 The Origins of Icelandic Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), p. 142. See also Peter Foote, “Saints’ Lives and Sagas,” in Saints and Sagas: A Symposium, ed. Hans Bekker-Nielsen and Birté Carle (Odense: Odense University Press, 1994), pp. 73–89. Foote’s essay provides some commentary on Turville-Petre’s “well-known dictum.” The essays by Margaret Cormack and Sverrir Tómasson in the same volume also engage with Turville-Petre’s claim. 3 The earliest manuscripts (now fragmentary) of saints’ lives are dated to the second half of the twelfth century. 4 The most recent study on the subject is Siân E. Grønlie, The Saint and the Saga Hero: Hagiography and Early Icelandic Literature (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2017). Grønlie argues for closer study of the connections between saints’ lives and other genres of Icelandic literature because, as we sometimes overlook, the same audiences who consumed the sagas of Icelanders, kings’ sagas, and romances were also reading the sagas of saints. The 1461 inventory of books for the Augustinian Möðruvallaklaustur (Diplomatarium Islandicum, vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-001

2

Introduction

intended as an examination of and further contribution to our understanding of often neglected aspects of medieval Icelandic devotional life and literary culture through readings of the manuscripts of the Old Norse-Icelandic life of the Virgin Mary, Maríu saga. The number of manuscripts which survive, even after the destruction and neglect of Catholic writings after the Reformation, attests to the popularity of the saga and its enduring value to those who continued to copy and read the text from its original composition in the thirteenth century to its printing in an edition in the nineteenth. The Virgin Mary’s increasing popularity over the course of the Middle Ages – and the waning and reshaping of her cult after the Reformation – has been and continues to be well documented in scholarship. Miri Rubin has observed that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries Marian devotion was primarily a monastic concern “with her liturgy and biblical presence, with her images and miracles,”5 but that in the thirteenth to fifteenth century the Virgin Mary was made “local and vernacular.”6 Mary was no longer the private possession of the Latin world but became central to an increasingly diverse group of vernaculars. As Rubin suggests, this attention to the mother of God “was meant above all to make familiar and cherished the figure of Mary and her saving child.”7 The growing focus on Mary beginning in the thirteenth century is linked to the devotion promoted among preachers, particularly among the Franciscans and Dominicans, to the life of Christ. Gail McMurray Gibson has pointed out, in her influential The Theater of Devotion, that “the incarnational preoccupation of the late Middle Ages tended to make the Virgin Mary – perhaps even more than Christ himself – the very emblem of Christian mystery.”8 This program of devotion was immensely successful. Although scripture was largely silent on the life of the mother of God, the early fathers of the church and the scholastics

Copenhagen: S.L. Möllers, 1899–1902, pp. 286–90) for example, lists (to name a few) a “miraculum bok vorar fru” (book of miracles of our lady), sagas of Sts. Augustine, Martin, Vincent, Cecilia, Agnes, Gregory the Great, Benedict, Thomas Becket, Þorlákur Þórhallsson (1133–1193), and the apostles alongside Völsunga saga, “jslendinga saga uond,” “lais saga” (perhaps the Old Norse translation of Marie de France’s lais), “damvsta saga,” and “hrolfs saga gautrekssonar.” 5 Miri Rubin, Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 121. 6 Rubin, Mother of God, p. 192. 7 Rubin, Mother of God, p. 220. 8 Gail McMurray Gibson, The Theater of Devotion: East Anglian Drama and Society in the Late Middle Ages (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 137.

Introduction

3

of the high and later Middle Ages wrote extensively with reasoned speculation on the events of her life and her role in the mysteries of the faith.9 In many classrooms in Western Christendom Mary came to be seen as a figure for wisdom whose skill with language served as a model for students.10 The faithful were encouraged to appeal to the Virgin Mary for intercession because of her mercy and because her son could not deny her requests. She was not only esteemed for her mercy, though. As the work of Kati Ihnat and Adrienne Williams Boyarin has shown, Mary’s fierce vengeance towards those who were not devoted to her was often as admired as the gentleness she showed to those who loved her.11 The Virgin Mary’s meekness, obedience, humility, devotion, and virginity were promoted as models to both monastic and lay audiences who wanted to obtain her favor.12 Key aspects of her life – her conception, birth, early life, marriage, the Annunciation, her parenting of Jesus, her witnessing of the Crucifixion, her life after Jesus’s death, her own death and Assumption to heaven – became regular subjects of theological speculation and debate. As in the wider medieval Christian world, the Virgin Mary enjoyed unrivaled popularity in Iceland from shortly after the island’s conversion around the year 1000 and even after her role in salvation was revised by the new Lutheran reforms instituted after 1550.13 The only other saints to enjoy similar 9 Thorough surveys are available in Rubin, Mother of God; Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, repr. 2009); Luigi Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologians (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005); and Brian K. Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion. Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, vol. 1, Doctrine and Devotion (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012). 10 On Mary’s role in the pedagogy of monastic schools, see Georgiana Donavin, Scribit Mater: Mary and the Language Arts in the Literature of Medieval England (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012). 11 See Kati Ihnat, Mother of Mercy, Bane of the Jews: Devotion to the Virgin Mary in AngloNorman England (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016) and Adrienne Williams Boyarin, Miracles of the Virgin Mary in Medieval England: Law and Jewishness in Marian Legends (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2010). 12 The virtues exemplified by the Virgin Mary were promoted in both male and female monastic houses, but certain aspects of the Virgin’s character were prioritized for women and others for men. Mary’s nurturing and purity were encouraged among the female religious while her intellectual acumen was suggested for men engaged in education or the priesthood. On this, see Rubin, Mother of God, chapter 16. 13 While Mary’s role was refashioned after the Reformation – in Iceland and elsewhere – devotion to the Virgin Mary did not disappear. In Iceland, manuscripts of Maríú saga continued to be used and, as Kirsten Wolf and Natalie M. Van Deusen’s catalogue The Saints in Old Norse and Early Modern Icelandic Poetry makes clear, medieval poetry continued to be copied and new poems dedicated to the Virgin Mary were composed well after 1550. For a full list of the

4

Introduction

popularity in medieval Iceland were Sts. Peter, Nicholas, Ólafr Haraldsson, John the Baptist, John the Evangelist, and the native Icelandic Sts. Þorlákr Þórhallsson and Jón of Hólar.14 The surviving máldagar (church inventories) edited in the multi-volume Diplomatarium Islandicum reveal that the Virgin Mary is the dedicatee of over three hundred churches in medieval Iceland; in fact, as Margaret Cormack has shown, the Virgin Mary “is named in the dedication or is represented by an image at eighty percent of the churches with extant máldagar.”15 Surviving documents also demonstrate that the Virgin Mary was frequently invoked in vows, wills, gifts, dedications, blessings, and indulgences.16 Although little is extant now, numerous sculptures, altar frontals, and other images were created in the Virgin Mary’s honor throughout the medieval period. While not all Icelandic churches kept records of their books, many of the ones that did owned a copy of Maríu saga, a biography of the Virgin Mary compiled in the thirteenth century from a variety of sources. Four Marian feasts are listed in the majority of the extant medieval Icelandic church calendars17 and two additional feasts are to be found in a handful of them.18 Sermons on these Marian feasts are copied, among others,

poems and the manuscripts preserving them, see The Saints in Old Norse and Early Modern Icelandic Poetry (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 2017), pp. 160–239. There are 365 manuscripts containing verse dedicated to the Virgin Mary ranging in date from ca. 1350 to ca. 1900. See Natalie M. Van Deusen and Kirsten Wolf, “Mapping Hagiographical Literature in Medieval and Early Modern Iceland,” in Faith and Knowledge in Late Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavia, ed. Karoline Kjesrud and Mikael Males (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), pp. 97–122, especially p. 113. 14 See Margaret Cormack, The Saints in Iceland: Their Veneration from Conversion to 1400 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1994) and Peter Foote’s preface to the book. Cormack bases her classification of popularity primarily on church dedications, books and other material objects in church inventories, personal names, as well as other factors. 15 See Cormack, The Saints in Iceland, p. 29 and pp. 126–29. Nicholas, Olaf, Peter, and Þorlákr are the saints with the next highest numbers of church dedications and are listed for seventy to one hundred and ten churches. 16 On the saints invoked in vows, wills, gifts, etc., see, most recently, Margaret Cormack, “How Do We Know, How Did They Know? The Cult of Saints in Iceland in the Late Middle Ages,” in Faith and Knowledge in Late Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavia, pp. 123–47. 17 These are the feasts of the Purification (kyndilmessa) on February 2, the Annunciation on March 25, the Assumption (Maríumessa fyrri) on August 15, and the Nativity (Maríumessa síðari) on September 8. On the feasts and the Icelandic calendars, see Cormack, The Saints in Iceland, p. 126. 18 These are the feasts of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple on November 21 and that of the Conception on December 8.

Introduction

5

in the oldest extant Old Norse-Icelandic manuscripts.19 The surviving Marian literature in poetry and prose,20 the church dedications and inventories, and other evidence reveals that Icelanders were taught, from at least the end of the twelfth century or beginning of the thirteenth, of Mary’s importance in salvation and her willingness to help those dedicated to her; they were also shown proof in the form of miracle accounts that the Virgin Mary regularly intervened on behalf of those who loved her. The Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga is a crucial witness to Marian devotion in medieval Iceland. The saga also represents an important stage in the history of hagiography in medieval Iceland because it is an early example of, and perhaps initiated, the so-called “florid style” that became popular in the thirteenth century. The earliest lives of saints were usually translated from single Latin sources in a simple language.21 Beginning in the thirteenth century and continuing into 19 See, for example, AM 619 4to (The Old Norwegian Homily Book) and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15 (The Old Icelandic Homily Book), both written around the year 1200. 20 In addition to Maríu saga and the hundreds of Marian miracles (in forty-three manuscripts and fragments), the Virgin Mary is celebrated in numerous Old Norse-Icelandic homilies, the ornately crafted fourteenth-century poem Lilja attributed to Eysteinn Ásgrímsson, other poems of the same century edited in Kellinde Wrightson’s Fourteenth-Century Icelandic Verse on the Virgin Mary (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2001), and numerous medieval and postmedieval Marian poems. Readers continued to engage with Maríu saga after the Reformation in 1550, but a new text appeared at the end of the medieval period that would compete with Maríu saga for readers who wanted to know more about the Virgin Mary’s life than scripture provided. This text is known as Barndómssaga Kristi. The oldest manuscript, DKNVSB 41 8vo, was written in the 1670s. The text is a translation of the Danish text Jesu Barndomshistorie printed in 1508, which is a translation of the fourteenth-century German Marienleben of Philipp von Seitz. At least thirteen manuscripts of the Icelandic translation survive, including one from North America, which suggests that this life of the Virgin Mary eclipsed Maríu saga in the tastes of early modern readers. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir is currently working on an edition of Barndómssaga Kristi and has been kind enough to share her findings on the text through correspondence. Based on the manuscript evidence, it doesn’t appear Maríu saga was ever revised for Lutheran audiences. Lilja was revised for Bishop Guðbrandur Þorláksson’s (d. 1627) Vísnabók (1612). The Virgin Mary’s life was also rewritten by Einar Sigurðsson í Eydalir (d. 1626) in the poem Maríuvísur and Ólafur Guðmundsson í Sauðanes (d. 1609) in the poem Máríu ævi eða Lífssaga helgustu Guðs Móður. On these poems, see Einar Sigurbjörnsson, “Maríukveðskapur á mótum kaðólsku og lúthersku,” in Til heiðurs og hugbótar: Greinar um trúarkveðskap fyrri alda, ed. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir and Anna Guðmundsdóttir (Reykholt: Snorrastofa, 2003), pp. 113–29. 21 The earliest saints’ lives are of the apostles, John the Baptist, early church figures such as St. Stephen the Deacon, St. Clement, and St. Silvester, Scandinavian/Icelandic Sts. Ólafr Haraldsson and Þorlákr Þórhallsson, as well as Sts. Ambrose, Basil, Benedict, Blase, Cuthbert, Erasmus, Eustace, Gregory the Great, Martin of Tours, Nicholas, and Vincent. On the dating of the sagas of saints, see most recently, Natalie M. Van Deusen and Kirsten Wolf, “Mapping Hagiographical Literature in Medieval and Early Modern Iceland,” pp. 97–106.

6

Introduction

the fourteenth Icelandic composers of saints’ lives began experimenting with new styles and methods of compilation from a variety of sources.22 Compilators turned to a mixture of sources to gloss complicated passages or doctrinal matters and to supply their hagiographies with exegesis of obscure scripture; they also focused their compositional efforts on ornamenting the language of their saints’ lives by modeling their texts on Latin rhetorical style.23 Maríu saga documents the Virgin Mary’s life from her conception to her death and Assumption and supplements the vita with exegetical commentary on scripture and explanations of doctrine and liturgical practice.24 The saga begins with a prologue (in most manuscripts) before discussing her genealogy, her parents Joachim and Anne, her conception and exemption from sin in the womb, her birth and life in the temple in Jerusalem, her marriage to Joseph, the Annunciation, her meeting with Elizabeth, Jesus’s birth, the Adoration of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt. The saga then moves forward in time to discuss the Crucifixion, Mary’s life after the death of her son, and her own death and Assumption into heaven. In the theological commentary supplementing the vita, which Wilhelm Heizmann argues gives “the saga its distinctive stamp,” the author addresses “Mary’s original sin, the name ‘Mary,’ the significance of the fifteen steps of the temple in Jerusalem and the Psalms associated with them, the mystery of Jesus’s human and divine nature, Mary’s freedom from sin, the painless virgin birth, the gifts of the three magi, the Slaughter of the Innocents in Bethlehem, the resurrection of the body at the Last Judgment, and man as the likeness of God.”25 Maríu saga survives in nineteen manuscripts; five of these preserve the saga in its entirety. Four of these manuscripts were copied in the medieval period and one in the early eighteenth century from a now lost medieval

22 These new methods of compilation and the new style of translating will be discussed further in chapter 3. 23 Among the saints’ sagas characteristic of the “florid style” of Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography are Maríu saga, Jóns saga baptista II, Jóns saga postola IV, Tveggja postola saga Jóns ok Jakobs, Páls saga postola II, Pétrs saga postola I, Nikuláss saga erkibiskups II, and Guðmundar saga C and D. 24 Due to its date, content, and aims Maríu saga should be seen as participating in the thirteenth-century tradition that also produced the Vita beate virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica, Conrad of Saxony’s Speculum Beatae Mariae Virginis, and Thomas of Hales’s Vita Sancte Marie. 25 Wilhelm Heizmann, “Maríu saga,” in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. Philip Pusliano, Kirsten Wolf, et al. (New York: Garland, 1993), pp. 407–8. Heizmann offers a brief introduction to Maríu saga as well as a summary of its contents and information on the manuscript tradition.

Introduction

7

exemplar.26 Oslo, National Archives (NRA) MS 78 (ca. 1250–1300) and Árni Magnússon (AM) MS 240 XI fol. (ca. 1275–1300), both fragments, provide the earliest evidence for the saga. There are older manuscripts that preserve fragments of the Marian miracles. AM 655 II 4to was written in the first two decades of the thirteenth century and AM 655 XIX 4to between 1225 and 1250. The textual relationship between Maríu saga and the miracles remains a puzzle.27 It is not known for certain if the miracles and the saga were always transmitted together, or if they circulated independently. If the saga and miracles were thought of as one textual unit, then these two early thirteenth-century manuscripts could provide slightly older evidence for the saga. Three separate redactions of the saga have been identified.28 The Aredaction is represented by AM 234 fol. (ca. 1340). The St-redaction, the longest of the three, survives in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (ca. 1325–1375). The latest and shortest of the three, the E-redaction, is found in the manuscript Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (ca. 1450–1500).29 Much of the material in the various redactions of the saga is based on the Evangelium de nativitate Mariae attributed to Jerome, the Gospel of PseudoMatthew, the Trinubium Annae, and Flavius Josephus’s Antiquitates Judaicae. Theological explanations are sourced from authoritative church figures such as 26 The five manuscripts that preserve the saga in its entirety are: Copenhagen, Árni Magnússon Institute (hereafter AM), MSS 232 fol. (ca. 1350), 234 fol. (ca. 1340), 633 4to (ca. 1700–1725); and Stockholm, Royal Library, MSS Perg. 4to no. 1 (ca. 1450–1500) and Perg. 4to no. 11 (ca. 1325–1375). Of the nineteen saga manuscripts, fourteen also contain collections of the miracles of the Virgin Mary. On the manuscript tradition of the saga, see Heizmann, “Maríu saga,” p. 407; and Kirsten Wolf, The Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013), p. 231. 27 This will be discussed further in chapter 1. 28 See Wilhelm Heizmann, Das Altisändische Marienleben. Teil I: Historisch-philologische Studien. Teil II: Edition der drei Redaktionen nach den Handschriften AM 234 fol., Holm 11 4to, und Holm 1 4to (Habilitationsschrift, George-August-Universität Göttingen, 1993). See also Laura Tomassini, An Analysis of the Three Redactions of Maríu saga, with Particular Reference to Their Style and Relation to Their Latin Source (PhD diss., University of Copenhagen, 1997). 29 The A-redaction is also found whole in AM 232 fol. (ca. 1350) and AM 633 4to (1700–1725), and partially in AM 235 fol. (1375–1425), AM 240 XIV fol. (ca. 1300), AM 634/635 4to (1700–1725), and NRA 78 (ca. 1250–1300). AM 656 I 4to (ca. 1300–1325) contains a fragmentary text that is a combination of the A- and St-redactions. The St-redaction is found partially in AM 233 a fol. (ca. 1300–1350). The fragments AM 240 I fol. (1375–1399) and AM 240 IX fol. (1350–1399) are witnesses of the E-redaction. In her recent work on the Old Norse-Icelandic Marian miracle collections, Die altisländischen und altnorwegischen Marienmirakel, Irene Ruth Kupferschmied identifies the A-redaction as “redaktion I,” the St-redaction as “redaktion II,” and the E-redaction as “redaktion III.” Die altisländischen und altnorwegischen Marienmirakel, 2 vols. (Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2017).

8

Introduction

John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Augustine, and Jerome. The saga also relies on the commentary available in the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor, the Elucidarius of Honorius Augustodunensis, and perhaps some version of the Transitus Mariae. The Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais and Legenda aurea of Jacobus de Voragine have been proposed as sources as well.30 The Benedictine priest Kygri-Björn Hjaltason (d. 1237 or 1238) has been credited with the authorship of the saga due to a statement in the Guðmundar saga D of Arngrímr Brandsson (d. 1361), a Benedictine priest and later abbot of Þingeyrarklaustur in northern Iceland. Arngrímr recalls that “Var Kygri-Björn mikilsháttar klerkr, sem auðsýnast má í þvi, at hann hefir samsett Maríu sögu” (Kygri-Björn was a distinguished cleric, which is made clear in that he has compiled the saga of Mary).31 There is little proof to support or reject the attribution to Kygri-Björn and thus scholars generally accept this attribution of authorship.32 If he is the author, then the saga must have been written before his death in 1237 (or 1238) but also probably after 1215. There are details regarding the chronology of Christ’s life in the saga which could suggest that the author was present for the discussion of this matter at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. In any case, it is unclear how closely the saga as it survives in the extant manuscripts resembles the text compiled by Kygri-Björn. The originally intended audience for the saga is also unclear. As has already been briefly mentioned, the saga confronts theological issues such as Mary’s role in salvation, the Immaculate Conception, and her death and Assumption, but it also reveals interests in historical narrative, genealogy, and geography. The focus on narrative and the key points of Mary’s life, especially those related to Christ, might hint at the kind of devotional program practiced in the monastery, but the fact that the Icelandic saga frequently displays a tendency towards commentary on scripture and explanation of doctrine could also indicate an audience in need of instruction. For Laura Tomassini, the Icelandic saga of Mary has a dual purpose; the first is to offer the mixed audience “an example of spiritual 30 On the sources of the saga, see Wilhelm Heizmann, “Maríu saga,” pp. 407–8 and Wolf, The Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose, p. 231. 31 Jón Sígurðsson and Guðbrandur Vigfússon, eds., Biskupa Sögur (Kaupmannahöfn: Í Prentsmiðju S.L. Möllers, 1858), p. 186. This attribution appears in the seventeenth-century copy AM 398 4to. 32 Even if Kygri-Björn is not the author of the Maríu saga we have, Benedictine origins for the saga would be appropriate since it is much indebted to the tradition of Marian literature established by the English Benedictines Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1103), Eadmer of Canterbury (d. 1126), William of Malmesbury (d. 1143), Dominic of Evesham (d. ca. 1150), and Honorius Augustodunensis (d. ca. 1154). It must be noted, however, that the manuscripts of Maríu saga were also obviously produced and consumed by Augustinian houses in Iceland.

Introduction

9

perfection personified in Christ’s mother – a reflection of increasing devotion to the Virgin in Iceland,” and the second is to explain theological difficulties regarding Marian doctrine. From this double purpose the saga exhibits an author involved in the “constant effort to explain and interpret, making use of allegories and examples from the scriptures and from everyday life that were intended to dispel or at least reduce any doubt or mistrust.”33 In Maríu saga we see a work not content with focusing solely on Mary as a model of Christian behavior, it is also interested in contemplating, along with the audience, important facets of doctrine. It is precisely because of this that the compilation – like others written in the so-called “florid style” – is an educated mixture of narrative, historical, scriptural, and exegetical sources.34 Scholarship on the saga has largely focused on identifying these sources the author translated or borrowed from to compile his biography of the Virgin Mary. This work is far from finished and scholars continue to call for more exploration of the sources of Maríu saga and the author’s approach to and methods of working with those sources.35 But a number of other questions should be asked about Maríu saga and its manuscript witnesses. First, when the medieval church inventories, or scholars, use the title Maríu saga, what are they referring to? Is it the vita only? The vita and the miracles? All complete manuscripts of the saga also preserve Marian miracles. What is the connection between the vita and miracles? Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, for example, notes in the vita that the miracles will follow.36 Is the vita meant to serve as a preface to the miracles? What does the presence of prologues for both the vita and the miracles in some of the manuscripts tell us about the plan for the codices? How did different scribes alter the form of the saga on the page? How do variations in the number of chapters and in chapter headings or in illumination and page layout change the reading experience? When other works are copied alongside Maríu saga, what are those works and why might they have been copied into these manuscripts? What is the provenance of codices dedicated entirely to the Virgin’s life and miracles and of those transmitting additional saints’ lives? What thematic 33 Laura Tomassini, “Attempts at Biblical Exegesis in Old Norse: Some Examples from Maríu saga,” Opuscula 10 (1996): 131. 34 See also Tomassini’s observations, in An Analysis, p. 2. 35 See Margaret Clunies Ross, “Love in a Cold Climate – With the Virgin Mary,” in Romance and Love in Late Medieval and Early Modern Iceland, ed. Johanna Denzin and Kirsten Wolf (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 303–17 and Heizmann, “Maríu saga,” in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. 36 The passage appears in the manuscript on 14rb7–8. The copyist, in order to further praise the Virgin Mary, alludes to the miracles to come in the codex: “sem sidar segir oc finnazt megu J jarteignum uorrar fru sancte Marie.”

10

Introduction

connections can be discovered in the manuscripts containing Maríu saga, her miracles, and the lives of other saints? How were the manuscripts used initially and over time? Were the contents changed? These and other issues have been neglected in the scholarship on Maríu saga and will be explored in this book. This study aims, then, not just to better understand the text Maríu saga, but also to discover how Maríu saga and its manuscripts participated in the cultural, literary, and devotional lives of the Icelanders who copied, read, and engaged with the text in a variety of ways for over five hundred years. It has long been assumed – and accepted – that medieval Icelanders only lukewarmly followed Christian ideals;37 the chapters that follow in this book offer further scrutiny of such claims through an examination of the culture encoded in the manuscripts produced, owned, and read by medieval Icelanders. The study is informed by D.F. McKenzie’s argument that the book (or manuscript in this case) is “never simply a remarkable object” but is the “product of human agency in complex and highly volatile contexts which a responsible scholarship must seek to recover if we are to understand better the creation and communication of meaning as the defining characteristic of human societies.”38 Some of the chapters will refer to social aspects – and at times the social lives of the manuscripts – connected with the composition and reading of Maríu saga because doing so, as McKenzie points out, promotes a focus on “the human motives and interactions which texts involve at every stage of their production, transmission, and consumption.”39 This study is also informed methodologically by some of the proposals of the so-called New – more recently Material or Artefactual – Philology that has

37 On the acceptance and practice of Christianity in Old Norse-Icelandic contexts, see Arnved Nedkvitne, Lay Belief in Norse Society, 1000–1350 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2009). For a recent critique of the insistence on lukewarm acceptance of Christianity (particularly in regard to the cult of the Virgin Mary), see Karoline Kjesrud, “Conceptions of the Virgin Mary in Medieval Western Scandinavia,” in Words and Matter: The Virgin Mary in Late Medieval and Early Modern Parish Life, ed. Jonas Carlquist and Virginia Langum (Stockholm: Sällskapet Runica et Mediaevalia, 2015), pp. 87–103. For a discussion of the reception of Christian emotionality in Old Norse contexts, see Stefka G. Eriksen, “Emotional Religiosity and Religious Happiness in Old Norse Literature and Culture,” Arkiv för Nordisk filologi 133 (2018): 53–84. 38 D.F. McKenzie, Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 4. 39 Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts, pp. 5–7. Referring to the “social lives” of manuscripts and books has become more common. This terminology is promoted, for example, in Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen’s more recent collection of essays The Medieval Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Introduction

11

developed since the publication of the collection of essays on New Philology in the 1990 issue of Speculum.40 The debate taken up by the 1990 Speculum special issue and that continues to be considered a wedge between traditional and New Philology (whether this wedge actually exists or not) focuses on to what extent scholars of medieval literature should rely on the printed edition. John Dagenais’s 1994 work The Ethics of Reading in a Manuscript Culture observes that “tens of thousands of manuscripts exist, ‘not as vehicles for reading’ to be discarded in the process of edition-making, chopped into lists of variants and leaves of plates, but as living witnesses to the dynamic, chaotic, error-fraught world of medieval literary life that we have preferred to view till now through the smoked glass of critical editions.”41 Dagenais’s argument is not meant to be one for the end of critical editions, but rather asks that we rethink “the exaggerated role they have been given in our representations of the Middle Ages and its literature.”42 There are obvious potential consequences – the obscuring of important matters such as the makers and users, the connections between texts, the changes to the codex or the texts for new audiences, the material aspects of the manuscript, the social forces behind the production – of working primarily with critical editions over the manuscripts.43 40 The Speculum special issue is vol. 65.1 (Jan. 1990). Usage of New or Material Philology as a methodology is not common in Old Norse-Icelandic studies, but there are a few recent exceptions. See Stefka G. Eriksen, Writing and Reading in Medieval Manuscript Culture: The Translation and Transmission of the Story of Elye in Old French and Old Norse Literary Contexts (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014); Patricia Pires Boulhosa, Icelanders and the Kings of Norway: Mediaeval Sagas and Legal Texts (Leiden: Brill, 2005); and Kate Heslop and Jürg Glauser, eds., RE:Writing: Medial Perspectives on Textual Culture in the Icelandic Middle Ages (Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2018). Lena Rohrbach offers a summary of Material Philology (and its potential for memory studies in particular) in Handbook of Pre-Modern Nordic Memory Studies, ed. Jürg Glauser, Pernille Hermann, and Stephen A. Mitchell (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), vol. 1. pp. 210–17. See also Stefka G. Eriksen’s overview “New Philology/Manuscript Studies,” in Handbook of Arthurian Romance: King Arthur’s Court in Medieval European Literature, ed. Leah Tether and Johnny McFayden (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), pp. 199–214. 41 Dagenais, The Ethics of Reading in Manuscript Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. xviii. 42 Dagenais, The Ethics, p. xviii. 43 This observation has been made so regularly since the late 1980s it is difficult to enumerate all of them. A few examples include Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen, eds., The Medieval Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches; Kimberly K. Bell and Julie Nelson Couch, eds., The Texts and Contexts of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 108: The Shaping of an English Vernacular Narrative (Leiden: Brill, 2010); C.W. Marx, “Beginning and Endings: Narrative-Linking in Five Manuscripts from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and the Problem of Textual ‘Integrity,’” in Manuscripts and Readers, ed. Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1983), pp. 70–81; Keith Busby, Codex and Context: Reading Old French Verse

12

Introduction

The New Philology has in the last decade developed into Material or Artefactual Philology. The proponents of this theoretical approach place greater emphasis, as Michael D.C. Drout points out, on “the social contexts in which the surviving form(s) of a text were produced rather than an attempt solely to reconstruct any form that preceded them,” and on understanding “these social contexts through a holistic analysis of the manuscripts, their full content, including marginalia, layout, and other aspects of their physical condition.”44 The reasons for this emphasis have been further explained by M.J. Driscoll: Literary works do not exist independently of their material embodiments, and the physical form of the text is an integral part of its meaning; one needs therefore to look at ‘the whole book’, and the relationships between the text and such features as form and layout, illumination, rubrics and other paratextual features, and, not least, the surrounding texts. These physical objects come into being through a series of processes in which a (potentially large) number of people are involved; and they come into being at particular times, in particular places and for particular purposes, all of which are socially, economically and intellectually determined; these factors influence the form the text takes and are thus also part of its meaning. These physical objects continue to exist through time, and are disseminated and consumed in ways which are socially, economically and intellectually determined, and of which they bear traces.45

In accepting and following these recommendations, then, the chapters in this book examine the physical features of the manuscripts of Maríu saga, exploring what the marginalia reveal about usage and ownership, the surrounding texts, and the changes to the manuscripts over time. The newness of New Philology and its utility for Old Norse-Icelandic studies have been called into question by Kirsten Wolf and, more recently, Richard Cole,46 and it must be pointed out that manuscripts have been and continue to be integral to the study of Old Norse-Icelandic literature. The main proposal borrowed from New/Material Philology in the chapters that follow is to make

Narrative in Manuscript, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002). Studies in Old Norse-Icelandic scholarship which engage with these problems will be discussed below. 44 Michael D.C. Drout, “Doing Philology 2: Something ‘Old,’ Something ‘New’: Material Philology and the Recovery of the Past,” The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe 13 (August 2010): 6. 45 M.J. Driscoll, “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New,” in Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, ed. Judy Quinn and Emily Lethbridge (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010), p. 90. 46 Kirsten Wolf, “Old Norse – New Philology,” Scandinavian Studies 65.3 (Summer 1993): 338–48; Richard Cole, “Philology and Desire in Old Norse, between Stone and a Hard Place,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 117.4 (October 2018): 505–25.

Introduction

13

the manuscript the central object of study with the assumption that doing so will open up a variety of readings of a popular medieval Icelandic text and a better understanding of that text and its contexts. Manuscripts were a regular feature of Icelandic literary life; the oldest vellum fragments date to the first half of the twelfth century and Icelanders continued copying texts on paper manuscripts well into the twentieth century.47 The importance of manuscripts for Icelandic cultural life cannot be understated. The collection of manuscripts gathered by the indefatigable Icelandic scholar Árni Magnússon (1663–1730)48 was placed on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register in 2009. Construction has been ongoing for a number of years now for a new Hús íslenskra fræða (House of Icelandic Studies) that will be home to the manuscripts, exhibits, study spaces, and a café. Though we must lament the loss of an unknown number of manuscripts,49 we can also consider ourselves fortunate since those that are extant have survived through the centuries despite neglect and abuse, aging in a not always hospitable climate, transportation to and from libraries around the world, disagreements and petitions between governments over ownership,50 and not least a 1728 fire in Copenhagen. 47 Sixteen Icelandic vellum manuscripts survive from the twelfth century (or ca. 1200) and a little over one-hundred from the thirteenth century. The greatest number of extant Icelandic vellum manuscripts were produced in the fourteenth century (over three hundred). Slightly fewer survive from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. See Már Jónsson, “Manuscript Design in Medieval Iceland,” in From Nature to Script: Reykholt, Environment, Centre, and Manuscript Making, ed. Helgi Þorláksson, Þóra Björg Sigurðardóttir, and Egill Erlendsson (Reykholt: Snorrastofa, 2012), p. 232. See also Guðvarður Már Gunnlaugsson, “Manuscripts and Palaeography,” in A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture, ed. Rory McTurk (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007), p. 249. 48 For a thorough account of Árni Magnússon’s collecting of manuscripts, see Már Jónsson, Arnas Magnæus philologus (1663–1730) (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012). See also Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, “Manuscripts on the Brain – Árni Magnússon, Collector,” in 66 Manuscripts from the Arnamagnæan Collection, ed. Matthew James Driscoll and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2015), pp. 9–37. 49 On the destruction of manuscripts in Iceland, see Már Jónsson, Arnas Magnæus philologus (1663–1730), pp. 36–40. 50 Iceland gained independence from Denmark in 1918. As it had done before independence, the Icelandic government continued to petition Denmark for the return of its manuscripts. Denmark agreed to do this in the 1960s, but the manuscripts did not begin to arrive in Iceland until 1973. The formal process was ended in 1997. Some of the most impressive manuscripts produced in medieval Iceland were returned as part of the agreement. These include, for example, Flateyjarbók, Skarðsbók, and the Codex Regius. For a contemporary account of the process, see Hans Bekker-Nielsen, “Icelandic Manuscripts in Denmark and Their Return to Iceland,” Libri 23.3 (1973): 169–80.

14

Introduction

While many of the manuscripts produced in the Middle Ages continued to be used or repurposed, they first became objects of critical study beginning with antiquarians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who were interested in learning more about and preserving Scandinavian cultural heritage – often towards nationalistic ends. Many of the medieval manuscripts were copied onto paper in this period – frequently either by or under the direction of Árni Magnússon – before being sent or taken to university and royal libraries in Denmark and Sweden, or other destinations. Critical editions were rare during this period, though there are a few notable exceptions. The nineteenth century is the great age of critical editions of Old Norse-Icelandic texts; the Norwegian Carl Rikard Unger alone produced twenty-five editions of Old Norse works from 1847 to 1877.51 Unger’s editorial output is a monumental achievement in scholarship, but, as Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir has observed, what “is equally remarkable (and some might say worrying), is that some of these volumes still serve as the standard editions of the works in question.”52 Indeed most of the editions from the nineteenth century have not yet been replaced or republished with corrections or additions, and the majority of scholars now recognize the possibility that these editions offer, in the words of Judy Quinn, “deceptively neat narratives” that are for the most part “editorial creations” constructed out of complex manuscript witnesses.53 In nineteenth-century editions of medieval Icelandic manuscripts it is common for the editors to consult manuscripts for single texts, and thus to isolate a work from its manuscript context. In many cases all of the texts within a manuscript have been edited, but in separate printed books. Unger, for example, used one manuscript (AM MS 234 fol.) to produce four separate editions. Though the introductions to these works discuss manuscript witnesses, there is little mention of the manuscripts’ production, readers, or any of the other contexts. Twentieth-century critical editions of texts and facsimile editions of whole manuscripts, published mostly under the direction of the Arnamagnæan Institute in Copenhagen, address many of these concerns, but these editions leaned towards linguistic (orthographic, paleographic, morphological) rather than literary interests, and, as Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir points out, “became

51 On the history of the study of medieval Icelandic manuscripts and the production of critical editions, see two essays by Svanhildur Óskarsdottir: “To the Letter: Philology as a Core Component of Old Norse Studies,” Scripta Islandica 60 (2009): 7–22 and “Expanding Horizons: Recent Trends in Old Norse-Icelandic Manuscript Studies,” New Medieval Literatures 14 (2012): 203–33. 52 Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, “To the Letter,” p. 9. 53 Quinn and Lethbridge, Creating the Medieval Saga, p. 14 and 19.

Introduction

15

increasingly specialized and geared more towards the needs of scholars interested in the history of the language”54 often at the expense of any interest in literary origins or concepts in and across the texts.55 Már Jónsson has echoed this, noting that while we have an “abundance of excellent orthographic, paleographic and morphological descriptions” of Icelandic manuscripts, we have less information on the manuscripts “from a historical and societal point of view, concentrating on the concepts inherent in the work of the persons involved in making, preparing, writing and illuminating them.”56 But in what I have said so far I am not suggesting that the critical editions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are no longer valuable, and clearly this is not an editing project. I am not suggesting that we always will, or should seek to, discover a reason or plan for the texts in every Icelandic manuscript. The foundation of this book is that the material turn – a return to the manuscripts and all of their texts and contexts – can make new readings possible and allow us to discover more about reading communities, patrons, and creators. Scholars of Old Norse-Icelandic literature have tended to examine manuscripts with their particular text in mind, as Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir has observed, and thus have paid little attention to the accompanying material.57 This is certainly the case for the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga and the purpose of this book is to expand our knowledge by engaging in the kind of scholarship recommended by the observations of Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir and others. Maríu saga, as the large number and variety in type of manuscripts suggests, was a popular text in medieval Iceland. The saga is also somewhat unique in Marian literature.58 Yet Unger’s 1871 edition remains the only widely available critical edition of the saga.59 Unger used or consulted each of the complete manuscript

54 Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, “To the Letter,” p. 14. 55 There are of course exceptions. See, for example, Peter Foote’s introduction to his edition of Jóns saga helga: Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga (Copenhagen: Editiones Arnamagnæanae Series A vol. 14, 2003). 56 Már Jónsson, “Manuscript Design in Medieval Iceland,” p. 235. 57 Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, “Expanding Horizons,” p. 206. 58 On a comparison of Maríu saga to other medieval biographies of the Virgin Mary, see Christelle R. Fairise, “Relating Mary’s Life in Medieval Iceland: Maríu saga. Similarities and Differences with the Continental Lives of the Virgin,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 129 (2014): 165–96. 59 Wilhelm’s Heizmann’s dissertation, which offers editions of AM 234 fol., Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, is difficult to find. There is a modern Icelandic edition based on Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11. See Ásdís Egilsdóttir, Gunnar Ágúst Harðarson, and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, eds., Maríukver: Sögur og kvæði af heilagri guðsmóður frá fyrri tíð (Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1996).

16

Introduction

copies of the saga and printed two versions of it and supplied variants in the notes. His first version is based on the fourteenth-century MS Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (1325–1375) with variants from four other manuscripts.60 His second redaction is based on the fourteenth-century MS AM 234 fol. (ca. 1340) with variants from seven manuscripts,61 though he begins this redaction with a prologue from a late fifteenth-century copy. Unger’s work, Mariu saga: Legender om jomfru Maria og hendes jertegn, is not simply an edition of the saga as he also prints the various Marian miracles transmitted in the manuscripts also preserving the saga. Here we have much of the prose literature composed about the Virgin Mary in medieval Iceland printed in two volumes which together offer over 1,000 pages of material. This is a monumental achievement indeed. While one can piece together the contents of the different manuscripts through detailed analysis of Unger’s notes, it is also possible to refer to this work as an editorial construction that does not reflect the manuscript contexts or literary origins. Unger’s work is impressive, but it certainly represents the kind of editorial practice called into question by Dagenais and those after him. Perhaps missing in Unger’s edition of Maríu saga and other texts relying on the same manuscripts is that closer attention to these manuscripts reveals varying levels of Christian instruction from basic learning in appropriate behavior, the tenets of the faith, and the practice of the liturgy for the novice to sophisticated theological learning in scriptural interpretation and doctrinal complexities for the more advanced reader. While some of these aspects might have been identified in individual studies of particular texts, a study of the manuscripts as a whole offers a more totalizing view of the preoccupations of the makers and users of the codices. As I have already mentioned briefly, Unger used some of these manuscripts to create editions of other texts. For example, Unger used AM 234 fol., the base text for his second redaction of Maríu saga, to also produce three other editions: Postola sögur (1874, Sagas of the Apostles), Heilagra manna søgur (1877, Sagas of Saints), and Thómas saga erkibyskups: Fortaelling om Thomas Becket Erkebiskop af Canterbury (1869, The Saga of Thomas Becket). When the texts of AM 234 fol. are read separately in different printed volumes their connections, and in particular, their insistence on the virtues of patience and humility, become lost. The chapters in this book, then, are presented as case studies in the manuscript tradition of Maríu saga which seek to restore the individual texts to their manuscript contexts and thus offer a clearer representation of the thematic connections

60 AM 232 fol., AM 633 4to, AM 634/635 4to, Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1. 61 AM 240 fol. IX, AM 240 fol. I, AM 240 fol. II, AM 240 fol. X, AM 240 fol. XI, AM 240 fol. XIV, and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1.

Introduction

17

between the texts, of the social institutions that produced the manuscripts, and of the readers who continued to find value in possessing them.62 The chapters that follow are intended for scholars of Old Norse-Icelandic literature and hagiography of course, but they are also intended to shed further light on the reach of the cult of the Virgin Mary and the ways in which that cult influenced the participating communities. With the exception of the first chapter and its more general focus on variations in manuscript witnesses, each chapter examines specific manuscripts and specific instructional matters prevalent in the texts copied in the codex. These chapters progress from discussing the more basic Christian instruction in the virtues (chapter 2) to scriptural interpretation (chapter 3) and then the ambiguity surrounding the Virgin Mary’s death and Assumption (chapter 4) and indeed the ambiguity of how to think about and prepare for one’s own death, judgment, and afterlife (chapter 5). Chapter 1 offers a brief introduction to manuscript production in medieval Iceland before then examining variations in the design and contents of the manuscript witnesses of Maríu saga. While there appear to be certain standards for the presentation of Maríu saga on the page and the prologues introducing readers to the text, there are a few ways in which copyists changed the reading experience for their particular communities. The second chapter focuses on two manuscripts, AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., created either by or for the southern episcopal see and cathedral school at Skálholt. Both manuscripts transmit additional saints’ lives and were likely intended for usage as lectionaries. Through readings of the whole manuscripts, a repeated insistence on the virtues “lítillæti” (humility) and “þolinmæði” (patience) becomes apparent. Chapter 2 thus discusses how this selection of virtues indicates an audience of the Augustinians housed at Skálholt but also might appeal to Icelanders listening to the texts being read aloud during mass or on particular feast days. The late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century changes to Icelandic hagiography form the basis of chapter 3. Maríu saga is an early witness to these changes in style, as is Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s Jóns saga baptista II, which is often copied alongside Maríu saga. This new style relied on multiple sources to both compile a narrative and provide glosses on obscure scriptural passages. The glosses often anticipate questions over “myrku figurur” (dark/obscure figures) and thus seek to explain away any apparent difficulties, contradictions, 62 Separate books could be written on each of the complete manuscript copies of Maríu saga. My aim has been to identify subjects important to the makers and users of the manuscripts and to explore how those subjects are addressed in the texts of the codex and how they might have contributed to thinking on these subjects in Icelandic devotional and literary culture.

18

Introduction

or complicated practices. This chapter, then, focuses on the provenance and contexts of manuscripts containing texts written in this style and which express concern over expounding upon “myrku figurur.” Chapter 4 focuses on one manuscript’s debate over a complicated doctrinal issue, the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. AM 232 fol., unlike most of the other manuscripts studied in this book, was stitched together over time. The AM 232 fol. copy of Maríu saga does discuss the Virgin Mary’s Assumption, but is rather non-committal on whether or not she ascended to heaven in both soul and body or soul alone. An Icelandic translation of the Transitus Mariae A written in a later hand and on smaller leaves has been inserted into the codex at the end of Maríu saga. This later text confirms, unequivocally, a bodily Assumption for the Virgin Mary and thus represents the thoughts of a later reader or community of readers on the subject. The provenance of the manuscript is discussed and found to be the likely reason that the translation of the Transitus Mariae A was later added to the manuscript. The final chapter examines the ways in which the manuscripts of Maríu saga address the questions humanity has always asked: what can we expect from the process of death? What happens to our souls, to our bodies after we die? In a more specifically Christian context, will there be both an individual and a final judgment? These questions are central to the final chapters of Maríu saga and indeed appear regularly in the miracles attributed to the Virgin Mary and in other texts copied alongside the saga. It is difficult to discover a consensus among medieval Icelandic texts regarding questions over the Four Last Things: death, judgment, and heaven and hell, but certain consistent elements can be identified in the manuscripts of Maríu saga. The majority of the primary citations in this book are to manuscript text. At times I rely on critical editions if a fragmentary manuscript lacks the reference or if the text is presented without emendations from variant readings. Because the primary texts are cited directly from manuscripts there will be variations in the spelling of the Old Norse-Icelandic text. The abbreviations employed by the scribes have been silently expanded with ease of reading in mind. Quotations and translations from the Vulgate are sourced from the Douay-Rheims Bible.63 Translations elsewhere are my own unless otherwise indicated.

63 http://www.drbo.org/drl/index.htm.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga One of the results of the turn towards Material Philology, as I noted in the introduction, is increased attention to the ways in which the material aspects of a manuscript text contribute to its meaning(s) and our understanding of its social and historical contexts.1 This focus on materiality is vital because, as Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen point out, “implicit to the manuscript’s very existence is its production and reception as a numerically unique artifact. With manuscript production and reception, differences in scribal hands, abbreviation systems, dialects, decoration, ruling, mise-en-page, use of catchwords, and rubrication all make two copies of a text different in any number of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. These differences were registered across the entire life cycle of manuscripts.”2 The numerous manuscripts and fragments of Maríu saga vary in their contents (in for example prologues and accompanying texts), their ordinatio (or subdivision into chapters), their size, decoration, layout, and so on. These elements have not been investigated thoroughly, and thus little has been said about how readers in different communities and times interacted with the texts in the manuscripts. This chapter addresses the variations in the design and contents of the manuscripts of Maríu saga to fill in this lacuna in our scholarship

1 The number of studies looking into the material aspects of and variance in Old Norse-Icelandic manuscripts is growing. See, for example, Stefka G. Eiksen, Writing and Reading in Medieval Manuscript Culture. Eriksen’s research on the reception of the story of Elye in its Old Norse translations focuses not just on the translation of the text from Old French into Old Norse – from one cultural context to another – but also on the manuscript witnesses in both languages and the choices made by scribes in presenting the text on the page. Hans Jacob Orning uses Material Philology to translate the usage of fantastic elements into their lived contexts for the fifteenthcentury readers of AM 343 a 4to in his recent book The Reality of the Fantastic: The Magical Political, and Social Universe of Late Medieval Saga Manuscripts (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2017). See also Lena Rohrbach, ed., The Power of the Book: Medial Approaches to Medieval Nordic Legal Manuscripts (Berlin: Nordeuropa Institut, Humboldt-Universität, 2014); Kate Heslop and Jürg Glauser, eds., RE:Writing: Medial Perspectives on Textual Culture in the Icelandic Middle Ages; and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir and Emily Lethbridge, eds., New Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of Njáls saga: The historia mutila of Njála (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018). 2 Michael Johnston and Michael Van Dussen, eds., The Medieval Manuscript Book, p. 3. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-002

20

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

of the text. In order to examine a specific case of manuscript production, some general information on the practice of the art in medieval Iceland is necessary. When working with medieval Icelandic manuscripts one must overcome a number of difficulties because, as M.J. Driscoll has noted, Icelandic manuscripts are generally “smaller, darker, with fewer illuminations and more abbreviations.”3 Icelandic parchment is likely much darker because lime appears to have been unavailable in Iceland and thus the parchment was not bleached.4 The dark color of the manuscripts can also be attributed to their repeated usage and their storage for centuries in “sooty, damp turf-built farmhouses.”5 Because of the quality of the manuscripts, text is often illegible. Resourceful Icelandic scribes mindful of expense often used misshapen pieces of parchment and kept margins small and thus the manuscripts produced on the island are on average smaller than those produced elsewhere.6 The smaller size required increased reliance on abbreviations. Driscoll has pointed out that in medieval Europe “in general the use of abbreviations was never as great in the vernacular as it had been in Latin. An exception to this are Old Norse-Icelandic manuscripts, which both in terms of frequency and variety of abbreviations exceed even Latin practice.”7 Taking note of the frequency and variety of abbreviations used in the manuscript witnesses can offer us more information about the expected readership of that manuscript copy. Among the other issues confronting scholars of Icelandic manuscripts is the question of the loss of manuscripts. Driscoll estimates that, despite the fact that around 1,000 medieval vellum manuscripts and an additional 20,000 paper

3 M.J. Driscoll, “Postcards from the Edge,” Variants 2/3 (2004), p. 22. 4 On this, see Sheryl McDonald Werronen, “Late Medieval and Early Modern Icelandic Saga Manuscripts,” in Vernacular Manuscript Culture, 1000–1500, ed. Erik Kwakkel (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2018), pp. 190–91, and Soffía Guðný Guðmundsdóttir and Laufey Guðnadóttir, “Book Production in the Middle Ages,” in 66 Manuscripts from the Arnamagnæana Collection, p. 213. 5 Soffía Guðný Guðmundsdóttir and Laufey Guðnadóttir, “Book Production in the Middle Ages,” p. 213. Manuscripts exported to Norway in the Middle Ages and kept there are much lighter than those that remained in Iceland, suggesting that conditions in Iceland contributed to the darkness of surviving manuscripts. 6 On the size of Icelandic manuscripts in comparison to European ones, see Már Jónsson, “Manuscript Design in Medieval Iceland,” p. 240. The small margins of Icelandic manuscripts did not prevent later readers from writing marginal notes. See Matthew Driscoll, “Postcards from the Edge” and Sheryl McDonald Werronen, “Late Medieval and Early Modern Icelandic Saga Manuscripts.” 7 M.J. Driscoll, “Marking-Up Abbreviations in Old Norse-Icelandic Manuscripts,” in Medieval Texts – Contemporary Media: The Art and Science of Editing in the Digital Age, ed. Maria Grazia Saibene and Marina Buzzoni (Pavia: Ibis, 2009), p. 13.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

21

manuscripts mostly from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries survive from Iceland, this represents “only a very small proportion – probably less than 10% – of those actually produced.”8 One other hurdle scholars of Icelandic manuscripts must overcome, especially if we want to make comments about the social and historical origins of specific manuscript copies, is the difficulty of determining the date of manuscripts and localizing them to specific areas. Establishing dialectical differences in the language of manuscript witnesses is made problematic by a mobile population and by the knowledge that many scribes were, as Stefán Karlsson has called them, “itinerant journeymen” who traveled to different farms to produce manuscripts.9 As a result, determining the provenance of manuscripts relies on either Árni Magnússon’s notes as to where he found the manuscripts or in matching hands in the manuscripts to charters that were written by named scribes at known dates and places. Each of the problems I have just enumerated introduces additional complications to attempts to read the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga in its manuscript contexts. While five complete copies of Maríu saga did survive, the number of extant fragments and listings in church inventories suggest that there must have once been many more copies of the text.10 Many of the extant fragments are made up of little more than one or two leaves and thus cannot tell us everything we want to know about the manuscripts that housed them. What is clear from the manuscript tradition is that while there are certainly variations in the narrative and the prologues, conclusions, accompanying texts, number of chapters, manuscript size, use of abbreviations, and the page design of Maríu saga, the text of the saga also enjoyed remarkable stability for one copied over a period of nearly five hundred years. When there are variations, then, they should be further examined so that we can better understand the possible reasons for scribal intervention and the relationships between manuscript witnesses. Certain questions must be asked about the differences apparent in manuscript witnesses, even if those differences are seemingly minor. We might ask, to start, what was the saga supposed to look like? How were readers to approach the text and how did scribes change

8 M.J. Driscoll, “Postcards from the Edge,” p. 21. 9 See Stefán Karlsson, “The Localisation and Dating of Medieval Icelandic Manuscripts,” Saga-Book 25 (1999): 140. 10 Már Jónsson, Arnas Magnæus Philologus, p. 207, citing Kristian Kålund and Þórhallur Vilmundarson, suggests that three or four medieval manuscripts of Maríu saga in Árni Magnússon’s collection burned in the Copenhagen fire of 1728. It is not known how many fragments or paper copies might have perished.

22

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

certain elements to aid the reading experience? We might also ask, what, precisely, does the title Maríu saga describe? This title cannot, as is often the case, simply be dismissed as a modern invention used to describe a medieval text as the title does appear in church inventories.11 Does the title Maríu saga indicate solely the vita of the Virgin Mary? Does this title also necessarily include the substantial miracle collections found in some form in all of the complete manuscripts of the saga? What other titles are used for the saga? How was the saga originally conceived? Were the vita and miracles seen as companion pieces as the manuscript tradition now suggests? Do the codices bearing the life and miracles of Mary contain other texts, and if so, which ones?12 More than half of the extant copies of Maríu saga (whole or fragmentary) are folio manuscripts. The largest of the manuscripts, AM 234 fol. (ca. 1340), a lectionary associated with the episcopal see at Skálholt,13 measuring 720 mm (440 mm × 280 mm), is among the largest surviving Icelandic manuscripts.14 The smallest of the manuscripts, Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I, measuring 300 mm, preserves an extract of the Maríu saga discussion of the Virgin Mary’s death and her role in the Last Judgment.15 The average size of the combined height and width of the manuscripts of Maríu saga is 467 mm, larger than the overall average size (372 mm) of Icelandic manuscripts produced between 1100 and 1600.16 The larger average size of these manuscripts is attributable, in many cases, to the fact that the codices were used in communal, rather than private, settings. The widest margins among the manuscripts are 4 cm (AM 233 a fol.), and most do not exceed 1.5 cm. The small margins are common to Icelandic manuscripts but could of course be due

11 The 1318 inventory for the church in Garðr í Kelduhverfi, for example, lists “mariu sogu oc nidurstigningar sogu” among its holdings. Diplomatarium Islandicum (DI) vol. 2 (Copenhagen, S.L. Möllers, 1893), p. 427. Entries for a “mariu sogu” or “mariu saga” are to be found in numerous other church inventories. The titles in these inventories will be discussed below. 12 Categorizing the codices and assessing the accompanying texts is complicated by the fact that many manuscripts are fragmentary and thus cannot reveal much about what else might have once been in the codex. Some manuscripts can be pieced back together, but many others remain incomplete. 13 This manuscript is one of the subjects of the next chapter. 14 See Már Jónsson “Manuscript Design,” pp. 239–40. The famous Flateyjarbók, at 715 mm, is the only other Icelandic manuscript of comparable size to AM 234 fol. 15 Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 is a unique little manuscript. Its size (110 mm × 190 mm) is somewhat odd. It was clearly pieced together from various pieces of parchment. Its cover is a loose manuscript leaf. The manuscript belonged to Gottskálk Jónsson í Glaumbæ (d. 1593). Its extract of the death and Last Judgment section of Maríu saga will be discussed briefly in chapter 5. 16 See Már Jónsson’s study “Manuscript Design,” p. 240. His survey of the size of Icelandic vellum manuscripts confirms, as others have observed, that Icelandic manuscripts are on average smaller than Norwegian and continental European ones.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

23

to later trimming; whatever the case, the narrow marginal space did not prevent later users of the manuscripts from trying their pens, writing their names in the codex, citing scripture, or copying prayers next to the text.17 Once the size of the manuscripts had been determined and the parchment prepared, pricked and ruled, the scribes, or their patrons or institutions, began the process of deciding which additional texts would accompany Maríu saga. This, obviously, often depended on the purpose of the codex. Except for a few fragments of three leaves or fewer, Maríu saga does not survive in any codex as a lone text.18 The manuscripts of Maríu saga can be classified into two categories, with one exception.19 One type of manuscript is what we might call a Marian codex. These Marian codices contain the saga of the Virgin Mary alongside a collection of her miracles.20 These Marian codices, and indeed the other extant manuscript witnesses of Maríu saga, would appear to suggest that the saga and some collection of miracles were always seen as one textual unit to be copied together into manuscripts. The reality of the manuscript tradition and the textual relationship between the saga and the miracles is perhaps not so simple, though.21

17 The majority of the marginalia in the manuscripts of Maríu saga is from after the sixteenth century. These marginalia usually consist of pen trials, but the presence of the markings suggests the manuscripts were preserved and used, even if those purposes were not devotional. 18 We cannot know, of course, if these fragments also contained other works. It is likely safe to assume, though, based on the extant manuscript tradition that the codices that these fragments once belonged to would have at the very least also contained some number of the Marian miracles. 19 Eight of the nineteen manuscripts are so fragmentary that nothing can be said with certainty about what they might have once contained. Due to this, definitive categorization is problematic. The one exception is the aforementioned manuscript Stock. Perg. 8vo n. 5 I (ca. 1550). The manuscript contains an extract of Veraldar saga (a universal chronicle covering creation to the twelfth century), the text Fjögur stórþing (a description of the first four ecumenical councils), a brief text on the history of the priesthood titled Kennimannsskapr, a list of the names of the fjords of Iceland (Fjarða nöfn á Íslandi), and an extract from Maríu saga describing the Last Judgment. The manuscript is thus made up of texts of interest to its owner. 20 The majority of these miracles are translations of well-known miracle tales that spread throughout the Christian world. In them, Mary intercedes on the behalf of sinners from all segments of society. For a detailed description of the miracles in each manuscript of Maríu saga, see Irene R. Kupferschmied, Die altisländischen und altnorwegischen Marienmirakel, vol. 2, Konkordanz und Handschriftenverzeichnis, pp. 108–68. 21 Understanding the textual relationship between the saga and the miracles is further complicated by the fact that the various Marian miracles copied into the manuscripts of Maríu saga were translated over time and reveal different techniques of translation and stylistic preferences. On this, see three works by Ole Widding: “Marialegender. Norge Og Island,” in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middeladler, vol. 11, ed. Ingvar Andersson and John Granlund (Copenhagen:

24

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

As I pointed out in the introduction, only one manuscript of Maríu saga points towards the miracles to follow in the codex.22 Most manuscript versions of the saga remind readers and listeners to appeal “til árnaðarorðs” (for the intercession) of the Virgin Mary. The prologues to the miracles in most manuscripts stress the same word, “árnaðarorð,” in order to establish the function of recounting the numerous Marian miracles. The saga offers up the Virgin Mary’s life as an exemplum for Christian faith and morality and then concludes with a reminder to the audience that having followed her life as an example, they simply need to appeal to the mother of God for help. The miracles that follow the saga, then, provide proof of the Virgin Mary’s intercessory power. The repetitive appearance of “árnaðarorð” at the end of the saga and throughout the miracles, as well as the manuscript evidence, is perhaps suggestive of a textual relationship between saga and miracles from the beginning. This is made less clear, however, by the church inventories where a possible distinction is often made between “mariu saga” and “miraculum bok vorar frv/bækur med jarteignum af mariu.”23 Only two entries in church inventories make it obvious that the book owned contains both the saga and the miracles. The first is a 1394 inventory from the church at Höskuldsstaðir in the bishopric of Hólar which lists a “mariu saga med jarteyknum” (Maríu saga with miracles) among its holdings.24 The second is an entry in the inventory of the Benedictine monastery Þingeyrarklaustr for the year 1525. Among the “norænu bækur” (Norse books) is a “mariu saga med jarteignum.”25 There are more examples that record a “mariu saga” and then separately in the same book list “bækur med jarteignum af mariu,” “miraculum bok vorar frv,” “Miracula sanctæ Mariæ,” or “Mariu jardteikner a Latinv.”26 The precise relationship between the saga and the miracles remains a problem without

Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966), col. 403; “Om de norrønne Marialegender,” Opuscula 2.1, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæna 25.1 (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1961): 1–10; “Norrøne Marialegender på europæisk baggrund,” Opuscula 10, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 40 (Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1996): 1–128. See also Peter A. Jorgensen, “Julian the Apostate and Manuscript Relatedness in Maríu saga,” in Across the Oceans: Studies from East to West in Honor of Richard K. Seymour, ed. Irmengard Roach and Cornelia Moore (Honolulu: The College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawai’i, 1995), pp. 113–14. 22 This is Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1. 23 This, again, depends on whether the title Maríu saga is indicative of the saga alone or the saga and the miracles. 24 DI, vol. 3, p. 533. 25 DI, vol. 9, p. 314. 26 Reynistaðarklaustr, DI, vol. 9, p. 321; Möðruvallaklaustr, DI vol. 5, p. 286 ff.; Viðeyjarklaustr, DI, vol. 4, p. 110 ff.; Hruni, DI, vol. 4, p. 43.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

25

an easy answer; what can be said with some assurance is that all of the surviving copies of the saga include at least some Marian miracles. Four surviving manuscripts of Maríu saga can be assigned to the Marian codex category. The manuscript Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, dated to 1325–1375, is the oldest of this type. It contains the St-version of Maríu saga and sixty-four miracles. Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, dated to the end of the fifteenth century preserves the E-version of Maríu saga, a new prologue to the saga, and 189 miracles of the Virgin. The two additional manuscripts that can be classified in the Marian codex type are paper copies of now lost medieval exemplars. The first, AM 633 4to (1700–1725) was copied by Magnús Einarsson (1688–1752) at the behest of Árni Magnússon. This is a copy of the A-version of the saga alongside twenty-nine miracle tales. The second, AM 634/635 4to (1700–1725) was copied, again on order from Árni Magnússon, by Eyjólfur Björnsson (1666–1746). This over-fivehundred-page, two-volume copy preserves the A-version of the saga and 230 legends of the Virgin Mary. No collection of comparable size survives from medieval Scandinavia.27 The other category of manuscript preserving copies of Maríu saga is of the legendary, or heilagra manna/meyja sögur (sagas of saints) type. These manuscripts copy the vita of the Virgin Mary alongside the sagas and passions of saints from the early centuries of Christianity to the present and of the apostles. The texts in these manuscripts were originally composed or translated during different centuries in Old Norse-Icelandic hagiographic traditions and with changing tastes in compilation; despite obvious differences in style and aim, the texts were still gathered together in one manuscript because of their edificatory nature and their potential as exempla for virtuous living.28 Some of these manuscripts are stately books and their arrangement of texts in calendar order suggests that they were used as lectionaries. The prevalence of this type of manuscript in both Old Norse-Icelandic and Latin is clearly exhibited in the inventories.29 The church at Múli, dedicated to Mary and St. Nicholas, in the diocese of Hólar owned a “Legenda de sanctis

27 It is also worth noting that these two volumes preserve miracles otherwise unknown from the extant manuscript witnesses. The manuscript has recently been the subject of the Master Class of the Arnamagnæan Summer School in Manuscript Studies. See some of their work here: https://manuscript.ku.dk/marian-miracles/gossiping_monks/. 28 These issues will be discussed further in chapter 2. 29 It should also be noted that there are many more manuscripts of heilagra manna/meyja sögur and postola sögur extant that do not contain Maríu saga.

26

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

á. ij. seiskinns Bokum.”30 The book titles “Legendu Bækur. per anni circulum,”31 and “Mariu sögu. oc postola sögur,”32 for example, likely also point to the kinds of collections in this manuscript type. Six manuscripts of Maríu saga belong to this category; these are AM 232 fol. (a manuscript made up of texts copied from ca. 1300 to the first half of the fifteenth century), AM 233 a. fol. (ca. 1350–1360 and ca. 1375), AM 234 fol., AM 235 fol. (ca. 1400), AM 656 I 4to (ca. 1300–1325; ca. 1600), and NRA 79 (ca. 1350). Two of these manuscripts, AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. (ca. 1400), were written at or for the Augustinian institution at the southern episcopal see Skálholt. AM 234 fol., as I noted above, is one of the largest extant medieval Icelandic manuscripts.33 In its present state the manuscript contains eightyone leaves.34 Peter Foote suggests that the “size of the codex, the generous quality of the materials, the clarity of the design, the rarity of ligatures and common abbreviations, all suggest that 234 was intended as a stately lectionary for a community. It was produced in a well-to-do establishment and was meant for a similar institution, the cathedral at Skálholt perhaps or a monastery, where Latin quotation and short titles for Psalms (as at 9vb33–34 and 30r) would cause no difficulty.”35 The manuscript’s copy of Maríu saga is of the A-redaction type and is followed by fifty-six miracles, three of which take place in Iceland. The manuscript also contains sagas of St. Anthony the Great, the Apostle Paul, St. Jón Ögmundsson of Hólar (d. 1121), St. Augustine, the Desert Fathers (Vitae Patrum), and Thomas Becket (d. 1170).36 The monastic appeal of the manuscript is evident from the selection of texts, and as I suggest in the next chapter, can also be seen in the repeated insistence on the virtues of patience and humility which would have been encouraged among the community reading and listening to the texts in the manuscript.

30 The inventory is for the year 1318. DI, vol. 2, p. 434. In 1394 the church owned a copy of “heilgra manna sogur.” DI, vol. 3, p. 577. 31 The church at Saurbær in 1318. DI, vol. 2, p. 451. 32 Michaelskirkju á Dyrhólmum í Mýrdal, 1340. DI, vol. 2, p. 742. 33 The manuscript is described in full in Peter Foote’s introduction to Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga. The manuscript will be discussed more closely in the next chapter. 34 Foote surmises that the manuscript once contained well over one hundred leaves. Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 13. 35 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 13. 36 The manuscript is now not in calendar order. Thómas saga erkibiskups was originally at the beginning of the codex, and the texts would have then been in the appropriate calendar order.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

27

These virtues are also central to another legendary manuscript from the same institution as AM 234 fol.; this is the now fragmentary AM 235 fol.37 An extract of Maríu saga and two miracles are copied on two leaves which provide an account of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and proof of her intercessory ability.38 The purpose of the extract from Maríu saga is made clear both by its content and its placement in the manuscript. Since the brief passage focuses on the death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary and it appears between readings for Laurence of Rome and Augustine, whose feasts occurred on August 10 and August 28, it is obvious that the scribe of this section, and the see at Skálholt, intended this extract of Maríu saga as a reading for the Feast of the Assumption on August 15. The lives of the saints in AM 235 fol. were originally arranged in calendar order and are a mixture of the passions of male and female martyrs and the sagas of apostles, fathers of the church, and more contemporary saints, including Scandinavian kings.39 A few of the saints’ sagas in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. are common to the other Maríu saga manuscripts in the legendary category, revealing that scribes and reading communities found these texts to be appropriate and sometimes necessary companions to the life and miracles of the Virgin Mary. The apostles are well represented both in Maríu saga and in the manuscripts containing the text. As I have already noted, AM 234 fol. contained a saga of the Apostle Paul and AM 235 fol. one of the Apostle Peter. AM 656 I 4to preserves a composite saga of Peter and Paul and the sagas of nine other apostles. Jón saga baptista, which is among the texts in AM 235 fol., is also a frequent companion to Maríu saga. John the Baptist’s familial connections to the Virgin Mary, his life of humility, and his devotion to the faith and to Jesus in particular make a saga about him an obvious choice for inclusion in the manuscripts. AM 232 fol. contains a nearly complete copy of Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s thirteenthcentury revision Jóns saga baptista II and is unique in the manuscript tradition

37 This manuscript is also described in Foote’s introduction to Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga. 38 The first of these miracles (42rb–42va) takes place in Rome the day before “Maríumessa fyrri” (the Feast of the Assumption). In the second (42va–42vb) a farmer is rescued from the demons in hell after his death by an angel because of his devotion to the Virgin Mary. 39 In addition to the fragment of Maríu saga, the manuscript contains the sagas of Hallvard Vebjørnsson (d. 1043), John the Baptist, St. Sebastian, Agnes of Rome, Mary of Egypt, Magnus of Orkney (d. 1115), Jón Ögmundsson of Hólar, the Apostle Peter, Margaret of Antioch, Martha and Mary Magdalen, Ólafr Haraldsson (d. 1030), Fides, Spes, and Caritas, Laurence of Rome, Augustine, Maurice, Dionysius the Areopagite, Flagellatio crucis, Theodore of Amasea, Martin of Tours, and Cecilia.

28

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

of Maríu saga in that it is made of four distinct codicological parts that were later bound together into one manuscript.40 The other manuscript which preserves Jóns saga baptista II alongside Maríu saga is the richly decorated and rubriced AM 233 a fol. It is a product of the famous scriptorium at the house of Augustinian canons regular at Helgafell.41 The current structure of the manuscript has obscured its original plan, but it seems likely that the manuscript was divided into two parts that were later bound, likely by Árni Magnússon, out of order.42 The first part of the manuscript was written by the scribe identified as Helgafell hand I and would have guided readers through the saga of John the Baptist (the prefiguration of Jesus), the saga of the Virgin Mary (including the infancy of Jesus, the flight into Egypt, the Crucifixion and resurrection, and Mary’s death and Assumption), and then Christ’s Descent into Hell (Niðrstigningar saga) and the finding of the cross (Kross saga). The second part of the manuscript, written by the scribe known as Helgafell hand II, consists of many of the same sagas of the female saints found in AM 235 fol. In AM 233 a fol. there are sagas of Fides, Spes, and Caritas, Catherine of Alexandria, Martha and Mary Magdalen, Agnes, Agatha, and Margaret of Antioch. The inclusion of these additional texts in the manuscripts of Maríu saga should not be surprising since most manuscripts whose provenance we know with some level of certainty were written and owned by either the Augustinian or Benedictine monastic institutions of Iceland. Some of these manuscripts were clearly intended for the monastic communities, but as I have already pointed out, others were compiled with public reading in mind. Depending on the intended usage for the book, scribes then had to confront a number of 40 Jóns saga baptista II and Maríu saga are part of one codicological unit. AM 232 fol., as AM 234 fol., also contains a copy of the Old Norse-Icelandic translation of Vitae Patrum. This manuscript is the subject of chapter 4 and will be described in more detail there. 41 The scribes attached to the monastery were also responsible for Skarðsbók Jónsbókar (AM 350 fol.), Skarðsbók postulasaga (SÁM 1), and AM 226 fol. (Stjórn, Rómverja saga, Alexanders saga, and Gyðinga saga). On this scriptorium and the group of extant manuscripts associated with it, see Ólafur Halldórsson, Helgafellsbækur fornar, Studia Islandica 24 (Reykjavík: Heimspekideild Háskóla Íslands og Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs, 1966), and more recently Stefan Andreas Drechsler, Making Manuscripts at Helgafell in the Fourteenth Century (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2017). AM 233 a fol. is described in Dario Bullitta. Niðrstigningar saga: Sources, Transmission, and Theology of the Old Norse “Descent into Hell” (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017), pp. 28–30, and Natalie M. Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints: The Legend of Martha and Mary Magdalen in Old Norse-Icelandic Translation (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2019), pp. 61–62. 42 The manuscript is mostly fragmentary now, and certain parts, especially those containing Maríu saga, are badly damaged and show signs of heavy usage or abuse. There is a third part, seven Marian miracles, which were written elsewhere and inserted into the manuscript.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

29

decisions concerning the design of the page – the column layout, text and chapter rubrics, illumination, and the ordinatio – and contextualizing works for the readers through the use of prologues and final commentaries. The scribes of the manuscripts of Maríu saga seem to have been split as to the best column layout (the mise-en-page) for reading the text. Of the nineteen manuscript copies, ten present the text in the more labor-intensive double-column format and nine in a single column. The earliest manuscript witnesses, AM 240 fol. XI (1275–1300) and NRA 78 (ca. 1250) for example, display the text in single columns.43 The makers of copies produced in the fourteenth century, the great age of Icelandic manuscript production, tend to prefer double columns. This difference in column design in the manuscripts of Maríu saga appears to conform in general to developments in Icelandic manuscript production.44 Icelandic manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries usually present the text on the page in single columns.45 Manuscripts of the fourteenth century reveal a shift towards doublecolumn text. Interestingly, after manuscript production declined in the fifteenth century and later due to disease and poor economic conditions, single-column text became more prevalent again. Miniatures and historiated initials in the manuscripts of Maríu saga are rare.46 The exceptions appear in AM 233 a fol., the Helgafell manuscript, and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11. The first folio of AM 233 a fol. in its present state displays a full leaf miniature of John the Baptist holding the Agnus dei with his mother

43 The youngest manuscripts, AM 633 4to (1700–1725) and AM 634/635 4to (1700–1725), also transmit the text in single columns. Both manuscript copies were commissioned by Árni Magnússon. Árni did have his scribes preserve the abbreviations of the medieval manuscripts they were copying, but whether or not they followed the column layout of the originals is difficult to know. If we consider the oldest manuscript fragments of the Marian miracles to have possibly once included the saga, we can add AM 655 II 4to (1200–1225) and AM 655 XIX 4to (1225–1250) as further evidence for a thirteenth-century preference for single columns of text. 44 The size of the manuscripts is also a factor in deciding on a layout. Quarto manuscripts are often written in single column and folio in double columns. Stefka Eriksen observes similarly in her study of the manuscripts of Elíss saga. See Writing and Reading in Medieval Manuscript Culture, pp. 117 and 177. 45 See for example the Icelandic Homily Book (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15, ca. 1200), AM 238 I fol. (lives of female saints, late thirteenth century), AM 619 4to. (ca. 1200–1250, the Norwegian Homily Book), AM 645 4to (lives of saints, ca. 1225–1250), AM 674 a 4to (Elucidarius, 1150–1199), AM 677 4to (Homilies, ca. 1200), AM 686 b 4to (Homilies, 1200–1224), and AM 686 c 4to (Homilies, 1200–1224). 46 Despite the fear of being repetitive, I must note again that since many of the manuscripts are so fragmentary we can say little about the illuminations and images that might have once been in them.

30

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

Elizabeth to his right and his father Zacharias to his left.47 On the verso side of the same leaf at the beginning of Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s Jóns saga baptista II the saga opens with a historiated initial “A” (Af kýnferð þessa hins) containing again an image of John the Baptist holding the Agnus dei. Folio 5r, the beginning of Maríu saga, contains the only other historiated initial in the manuscript that has survived. Inside the initial “D” (Drottning himins ok iardar sæl) is an image of a seated Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus; her mother Anne sits to Mary’s left and her father Joachim on her right side. The miniature in Stock. Perg 4to no. 11 depicts St. Anne seated with the Virgin Mary on the left side of her lap, the baby Jesus on the right, and Joachim in the background.48 The miniature occupies the whole leaf and serves as a partition between the end of Maríu saga and the prologue to the miracles. More modestly decorated initials – usually in red but occasionally including blue, green, and gold – are a regular feature of the manuscripts of Maríu saga. These illuminated initials open the text and introduce new chapters or, in the miracles at the end of the saga, individual legends concerning the Virgin Mary’s intercessory potential. One variation in the use of initials is of significance because of the manner in which it would have improved the reading experience. AM 233 a fol. and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 both contain, as I just pointed out, miniatures, historiated and decorated initials. As in other manuscripts in the tradition, these initials call attention to each chapter. The innovation in AM 233 a fol. and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 is to utilize smaller black initials in the margins of the manuscript to highlight particular textual units within larger chapter sections.49 This technique of using smaller black initials assists readers in quickly finding passages within longer divisions of continuous text. These initials could have also made public and private reading and finding one’s place in the manuscript a slightly less daunting task. Work titles in the manuscripts of the saga, when supplied, are written in red ink, usually in a separate hand. While most of the church inventories list 47 The manuscript is fully digitized and is available on the Handrit.is website (https:// handrit.is/en/manuscript/imaging/da/AM02-233-a#page/1r++(1+of+68)/mode/2up). There has been some disagreement about the figures in the miniature. For a recent summary of the debate, see Drechsler, Making Manuscripts at Helgafell, pp. 37–38. The reclining figure at the bottom of the leaf (between the legs of John the Baptist) has been assumed to be the artist. The good condition of this leaf has led most scholars to assume that it was not originally the first of the manuscript. 48 27r. A black and white scan of the miniature is available here: http://digitalesamlinger. hum.ku.dk/Home/Details/596577. 49 See 8v in Stock. Perg 4to no. 11, for example. A black and white scan of 8v is available here: http://digitalesamlinger.hum.ku.dk/Home/Details/596568.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

31

simply “mariu saga” among their possessions,50 the titles in the manuscripts of the saga provide more detail. In AM 232 fol. the title “Her hefr vpp saugv vorrar fru sancte Marie” (Here begins the saga of our lady St. Mary) appears in red ink above the first line of the prologue on 55r. AM 233 a fol. offers the somewhat wordy title “Her byriar vpp lifssogu hinar helguztu ok dyruztu drottningar. meyjar ey lifrar. ok guds modir. fru sancte marie. hinar millduztu. nest Gudi” (Here begins the life-saga of the holiest and most precious queen, eternal maiden, and mother of God, lady St. Mary, the mildest after God) on folio 5r between the end of Jóns saga baptista II and the first lines of Maríu saga. The lectionary AM 235 fol. uses the shortest title: “saga vorrar frú” (the saga of our lady). The shortness of the title is likely due to the limits of space since the title is no longer than a chapter heading and is squeezed into the text between the opening lines of the exceprt of Maríu saga and the end of Lárentíus saga erkidjákns (the saga of Laurence of Rome). Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, as in other design choices, differs from the other manuscripts in recording the title of the work after the prologue to the saga. The title of the work, “her hefr vpp sögu Mario drotningar” thus appears at the head of the first chapter which introduces the audience to the lineage of the Virgin Mary. The rest of the manuscripts are either too fragmentary to reveal the titles of the work or were left unfinished.51 Chapter headings in the manuscripts are also written in red ink and usually in a hand distinct from the main text. Occasionally, chapter headings are left

50 The following is a complete list of book titles in the church inventories that could be designating Maríu saga: “eina mariu sogu” (DI, vol. 2, p. 408), “mariu sogu oc nidurstigningar sogu” (DI, vol. 2, p. 427), “Mariu saga” (DI, vol. 2, pp. 436, 444, 455, 458, 785; DI, vol. 3, pp. 155, 171, 549, 587, 588, 599; DI, vol. 4, pp. 100, 374; DI, vol. 5, pp. 277, 284; DI, vol. 6, pp. 340, 556, 623; DI, vol. 7, p. 74; DI, vol. 9, pp. 297, 321; DI, vol. 11, p. 850), “mariu saga oc kross sogor badar oc vppreistar saga” (DI, vol. 2, p. 664; DI, vol. 4, p. 43), “Mariu sögu” (DI, vol. 2, p. 679), “mariu sögu. oc postola sögur” (DI, vol. 1, p. 742; DI, vol. 4, p. 111), “mariu saga med jarteyknum” (DI, vol. 3, p. 533; DI, vol. 9, p. 314), “mariu saga. en stærre” (DI, vol. 9, p. 305), “mariu saga hin minne” (DI, vol. 9, p. 305), and “mariu historia” (DI, vol. 9, p. 305). The titles “mariu saga. en stærre” (Mariu saga the larger), “mariu saga hin minne” (Mariu saga the smaller), and “mariu historiu” all appear in the 1525 inventory of the Benedictine monastery at Munkaþverá. The “mariu historiu,” as Marianne Kalinke has pointed out, likely refers to the Little Office of the Virgin Mary. What exactly the difference is between “mariu saga en stærre” and “mariu saga en minne” is more difficult to determine. See Marianne Kalinke, “Maríu saga og Önnu,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 109 (1994): 45. 51 The illuminated initials, work titles, chapter headings, and other decorative elements were never finished in AM 234 fol., despite the fact that the scribes had left space for them. The Maríu saga copies in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 and AM 656 I 4to lack a title to the work, as do the early eighteenth-century copies AM 633 4to and AM 634/635 4to.

32

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

blank. Examining changes in the titles, number, and placement of chapters can provide us with insight into how the scribes hoped to improve the reading experience for users of the manuscript. As Tjamke Snijders has noted “a change in the number of chapters was one of the most fundamental changes a scribe could make, because it changed the ordinatio of a story – its subdivision into books, chapters, and paragraphs. Medieval scribes considered the ordinatio of a tale to be its formal cause, and essential for understanding the narrative. Thus, in changing the ordinatio of a story, they changed the way it was read.”52 Copyists of the manuscripts of Maríu saga did experiment with the ordinatio of the text; the number of chapters ranges from twenty-one to thirty. Despite the chapter headings never being finished, it is clear that AM 234 fol. (the A-redaction) is divided into a prologue and twenty-one chapters. These twenty-one chapters divide the saga of the Virgin Mary into its most significant episodes, including the Annunciation to Anne and Joachim, Mary’s birth and presentation to the temple, her marriage to Joseph, the Annunciation of Gabriel and incarnation, Mary’s meeting with Elizabeth, the journey of the magi, the threats of Herod the Great, the flight into Egypt, the Crucifixion, and finally Mary’s own death and Assumption to heaven. The copy of Maríu saga in AM 232 fol. belongs to the A-redaction family and the text here is also arranged into twenty-one chapters. Since the A-redaction copy in the eighteenth-century manuscript AM 634/635 4to is incomplete we cannot know the ordinatio for certain. The other eighteenth-century copy, AM 633 4to, also belongs to the Afamily, but the medieval exemplar for this copy has arranged the text into twenty-four chapters. The change in the ordinatio of AM 633 4to occurs at the end of the saga in the chapters concerning the Virgin Mary’s death. The scribes of AM 234 fol. and AM 232 fol. document the passing of the Virgin Mary and the explanations for her empty tomb in two chapters.53 The medieval exemplar used to create AM 633 4to narrates the same subjects in five chapters instead. Earlier chapters documenting Anne and Joachim and Mary’s childhood are collapsed into longer sections. At the end of the saga, however, the scribe has opted to divide text into shorter units that call attention to important doctrinal aspects connected to the Virgin Mary’s death.

52 Tjamke Snijders, “Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology,” Digital Philology 2.2 (Fall 2013): 271. 53 These chapters are titled “andlat vorrar fru” (the death of our lady) and “Af grof vorrar fru” (on the grave of our lady) in AM 232 fol. (63vb and 65rb). Part of this section is missing in AM 634/635 4to, but it seems likely that these subjects were also divided into two chapters in the medieval exemplar.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

33

The story of the Virgin Mary’s death54 begins in chapter 19 (p. 93)55 where the audience is informed about the chronology of her death in relation to the Crucifixion, the arrival of the apostles on clouds and that the precedence for this established in the Book of Daniel, the presence of angels at Mary’s deathbed, and the location of her tomb in the Valley of Josaphat. The next chapter locates the Valley of Josaphat and reminds the audience that this valley is also where the Last Judgment will take place. Some information about what will happen in the Last Judgment – especially to the bodies of the faithful – is then offered in the rest of chapter 20. Chapter 21 continues the same subject and provides proofs for the arguments just made on the transition bodies experience after death by returning to Jesus’s own resurrection and appearance after death. In chapters 22, 23, and 24 AM 633 4to confronts the possibilities for why Mary’s tomb was found to be empty, expounds upon the symbolism in Canticles 6:9,56 and reminds readers of the purpose and usefulness of Maríu saga. Though slight, this change in the ordinatio in the AM 633 4to copy of the A-redaction enables readers to more easily locate significant aspects related to the doctrines of the Assumption, resurrected souls and bodies, and the Last Judgment. The E- and St-redactions also invite readers to dwell on particular episodes from the Virgin Mary’s life through the arrangement of chapters. As I noted in the introduction, Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (the E-redaction) contains the shortest version of Maríu saga. The makers of the manuscript divide the vita into two prologues and twenty-five chapters, in contrast with AM 633 4to, where readers are guided through shorter textual units at the beginning of the saga. The history of Joachim and Anne and Mary’s childhood is presented over eight chapters while Mary’s death and Assumption is compressed into two (as in AM 232 fol. and AM 234 fol.). Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, the longest of the versions, transmits the saga in thirty chapters. The scribes of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 assumed greater labor than those of other copies in order to produce a more accessible text. I have already noted the usage of smaller black initials to create more subsections within larger chapters. The chapter division and headings are also designed to assist readers in finding specific episodes and theological passages. Early in the saga when the Virgin Mary ascends the steps to the temple, the saga digresses into a lenghty

54 How Maríu saga deals with the Virgin Mary’s death and Assumption and what bearing these subjects have on death in general and the Last Judgment will be discussed in chapters 4 and 5. 55 Though space was left for them, the paper manuscript lacks chapter headings. 56 “Quae est ista quae ascendit sicut aurora consurgens, pulchra ut luna, electa ut sol, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata.”

34

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

explication of the Gradual Psalms, their relation to the fifteen steps, and their symbolic interpretation. None of the other manuscript copies of Maríu saga present this explication in two separate chapters, as Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 does. The titles of the chapters, “um palla lofsöngva” (4ra) and “um lögsalm” (4vb), alert readers to the significance of these sections for devotional practice. In AM 232 fol., AM 234 fol., and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, for example, the first part of the interpretation of the Gradual Psalms is concealed within previous chapters relating to Mary’s parents Joachim and Anna. The scribes of AM 232 fol. recount the incarnation in between the chapters titled “Gabrial var sendr” (58ra) and “Marie koma til Elizabeth” (58vb). The incarnation is, obviously, an important component of Maríu saga, especially in the saga’s discussion of the resurrected body and the Last Judgment. Aware of its important role in the narrative and as a tenet of faith, the scribes of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 isolate the conception of Jesus into its own chapter titled “um getnat” (on the conception, 9ra). This technique is maintained throughout the manuscript and suggests that the makers and users of this copy required a text that was easier to navigate and understand. This argument is further supported by the fact that of the three redactions of Maríu saga the St-version in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 exhibits the most concern for explaining complicated passages.57 I have already noted that the St-redaction is the longest of the three versions. This is due in large part to lengthy explanatory commentary on, for example, the Virgin Mary’s familial relationships, the painless virgin birth, the flight into Egypt, and the Last Judgment and the transformation undertaken by the resurrected body that is not incorporated into the A- and E-redactions. Comparative analysis of the three redactions reveals that there is clearly one text behind the three versions that has then been condensed or expanded depending on the needs or interests of the scribes producing and communities consuming the manuscripts. The prologues, final commentaries, and introductions to the miracle collections of the manuscript copies of Maríu saga often convey the purpose(s) of the codex. None of the nineteen manuscript copies of Maríu saga contain a preface to the whole manuscript which declares the authorial intention (intentio auctoris), the intention of the compilers and scribes, or the utilitas (the usefulness) of the manuscript for the reading or listening audience.58 This is the case for both the

57 Though her focus is mainly on style, Laura Tomassini addresses some of the differences between the three main versions of Maríu saga in her dissertation An Analysis. See in particular the introduction, pp. 1–24. 58 An exception might be Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (E) as the manuscript’s prologue (discussed below) can be read as an introduction to the entire codex. There is an additional prologue to the miracles, though. On the presence of these rhetorical terms in the medieval commentary

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

35

Marian and legendary codices. In some of the manuscripts, however, prefaces to individual texts and groups of texts – such as Maríu saga and the collections of miracles – reveal the intentions of the compiler, the usefulness of the text, and the reasons for its committment to parchment. Each of the three redactions (A, E, and St), while agreeing on certain key elements, introduce Maríu saga differently.59 AM 234 fol. (the main manuscript of the A-redaction) presents a unique case in the manuscript tradition. Maríu saga begins at 28vb27; the a-column of 28v and the first line of the b-column contains the conclusion to Páls saga postola II. The scribe writing 28v in AM 234 fol. has inserted a transitional text between the end of Páls saga postola II and the prologue of Maríu saga.60 This is unusual when we consider other Maríu saga manuscripts of the legendary type. In AM 232 fol. Maríu saga begins on 55r with the A-redaction prologue. The previous text, Barlaams saga ok Jósaphat may not have originally been the work meant to precede the saga of the Virgin Mary; in any case, there is no transitional text. AM 233 a fol.’s copy of Maríu saga begins immediately with the prologue after the conclusion of Jóns saga baptista II. The saga vorrar frú in the lectionary AM 235 fol. proceeds directly into the chapter on the death and

tradition, see A.J. Minnis and A.B. Scott, eds., Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, ca. 1100–ca. 1375: The Commentary Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003). For definitions of auctor and auctoritas and their usage in academic prologues, see Alastair Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), pp. 10–13. See also Margaret Clunies Ross, “Criticism and Literary Theory in Old Norse-Icelandic,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 2, The Middle Ages, ed. Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 345–62. Prefaces to whole codices in Old Norse-Icelandic tradition are rare. The first leaves of the legendary collections like AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. have been lost, but other collections of a similar type suggest that we are not lacking introductory material composed by the creators of the manuscripts. Prologues to individual works are a regular feature to Old NorseIcelandic hagiographical texts, though. 59 My comments on the prologues are based on the exemplars of the three main redactions, AM 234 fol. for A, Stock. Perg 4to no. 11 for St, and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 for E. Any significant differences in a manuscript witness for either A, E, or St will be documented in the notes. 60 The space left for the initial and rubric for this text is only three lines, much smaller than the nine-line initial at the opening of Maríu saga. The nine-line initial announces a new text while the three-line initial at the beginning of the Marian miracle follows the format of the chapter and individual miracle headings of Maríu saga. This further confirms the somewhat peculiar liminality of the miracle. The Apostle Paul is not in the miracle despite the fact that it appears at the end of his saga, separated only by a three-line initial. The three-line gap (presumably left for a title) and then nine-line initial that separates the miracle from Maríu saga would appear to isolate the miracle from the saga. A black and white scan of 28v is available here: http://digitalesamlinger.hum.ku.dk/Home/Details/333784.

36

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

Assumption of the Virgin Mary at the closing of the reading for Laurence of Rome. This is further indication, as a I have already observed, of the intended use of AM 235 fol. as a manuscript for public reading. A private reader would likely be surprised by the lack of a transitional text. A listener who has attended a festival for the Feast of the Assumption on August 15, however, would likely be unaware of the previous and next texts in the manuscript and the priest tasked with the public reading need only search for the rubric “saga vorrar frú” to find the appropriate passage for Feast of the Assumption. The text that functions as a transition from Páls saga postola II to Maríu saga – a miracle recounting how a cloth used during the Virgin Mary’s birth restores sight to a blind king after the fabric touches his face61 – occupies twenty-four lines of 28vb (beginning after the last line of Páls saga postola II). This is, as I have already briefly mentioned, a peculiarity in the manuscript tradition and warrants some brief commentary regarding the reasons for the miracle’s placement in AM 234 fol. In all of the other manuscripts of Maríu saga that are complete enough to reveal their original structure the Marian miracles always appear after the vita and usually succeeding a prologue on the utilitas of the miraculous tales (this is true for the other Marian miracles copied in AM 234 fol.). Why the creators of AM 234 fol. diverged from standard practice and recorded this miracle in the transition between the sagas of the Apostle Paul and the Virgin Mary is not obvious.62

61 The same miracle is preserved in AM 634/635 4to on 492f. Unger printed the text as item CXCV in his edition of Maríu saga under the title “konungr feck syn, er vor fru var fœdd” (a king received sight when our lady was born). Neither manuscript records a rubric for the miracle. The first line of the miracle “sa atburðr er sagðr af vitrum monnum þo at hann standi eigi iritingum” (this miracle is said among the learned even though it does not stand in writing) has proven to be quite accurate. I assume that the miracle was not composed in Iceland and is likely based on a Latin source, but have as yet not been able to identify such a source text. The legend is not in the widespread HM-TS (Hildefonsus-Murieldis and Toledo-Saturday) collection, William of Malmesbury’s Miracula Beatae Virginis, nor in the voluminous Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College MS 95 (the manuscript contains nearly five-hundred Marian legends). I have not located the tale in Middle English, French, or Spanish collections either, though admittedly my search has not been exhaustive for the latter two vernaculars. Irene R. Kupferschmied, Die altisländischen und altnorwegischen Marienmirakel, vol. 2, Konkordanz und Handschriftenverzeichnis, p. 98, provides a summary of the miracle but does not discuss potential sources. Ole Widding, “Norrøne Marialegender pä europæisk baggrund,” Opuscula 10 (1996): 76 notes only that this miracle is “uden for serien” (outside the series). 62 Irene R. Kupferschmied considers the miracle to fit chronologically in the manuscript since it concerns the birth of the Virgin Mary. I am grateful to Irene for corresponding with me about the miracle and AM 234 fol.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

37

The miracle could serve as a reading for the feast of the Nativity of Mary; if this is the case then the creators of the manuscript might have desired the flexibility of readings for all the major Marian feasts.63 Another possibility is that the miracle is included in this place in the manuscript because the blind king recognizes that Mary’s birth signals a symbolically important moment for human history; this brief passage could thus prepare the audience for the significance of the saga they are about to read or hear. There is also the possibility that the miracle of the Virgin Mary and the blind king appears here because of the slight connection to the Apostle Paul’s blindness and the restoration of his sight through divine intervention.64 There is no commentary included with the miracle, nor was the title; without either of these aids the reasons for the placement of the miracle is difficult to determine with absolute certainty. Unlike the miracle preceding it, the prologue to Maríu saga in AM 234 fol. does provide the audience with some insight into its purpose and aims. The first lines of the introductory chapter, “sva seger Jeronimvs prestr at sæl ok dyrðlig mær Maria væri komín af konvngligri ætt. Ok tok hann þat af fra savgnn Mathevs gvðzspialla manz” (Father Jerome says that the blessed and glorious Virgin Mary came from a royal lineage. He took that from the account of the evangelist Matthew) reveals two preoccupations common to most of the prologues to Maríu saga and Old Norse-Icelandic hagiographical and historiographic literature more generally.65 These two preoccupations are the desire to establish

63 Other readings for the Nativity of Mary exist in the saga proper, so the argument that this is the purpose of the miracle of the Virgin Mary and the blind king is not wholly convincing. There is also the problem of the order of the texts according to the liturgical year. Maríu saga appears in the manuscript between the sagas of the Apostle Paul and Jón Ögmundsson. The feast of the Nativity of Mary is held on September 8, but the feasts of the conversion of the Apostle Paul and Jón of Hólar are celebrated January 25 and April 23. This would suggest that, according to the liturgical calendar, the AM 234 fol. Maríu saga text is meant to provide readings for Candlemas on February 2 and/or the feast of the Annunciation on March 25. The AM 234 fol. copy, however, preserves the entirety of the saga and thus could fulfill the requirements for readings on all the Marian feast days. 64 The story of Paul’s blinding, conversion, and the restoration of his sight is told in Acts 9: 1–22. I am grateful to my colleague Basil Arnould-Price for suggesting the potential connection of the miracle to Paul’s brief experience of blindness. 65 This effort to ground the narrative in the authority of scripture and the church fathers is, of course, not unique to Old Norse-Icelandic literature. On the use of the doctores eccelsiae to establish auctoritas in Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography, see Astrid Marner’s MA thesis, “kennifeðr helgir”: Lateinische Autoritäten in der altnordischen Hagiographie (MA Thesis, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 2007), her dissertation, glosur lesnar af undirdiupi omeliarum hins mikla Gregorij, Augustini, Ambrosij ok Jeronimi ok annarra kennifedra: Väterzitate und Politik in der Jóns saga baptista des Grímr Hólmsteinsson (PhD diss., Rheinischen Friedrich-

38

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

the auctoritas of the saga (and the appended exegetical commentary) and to chronicle the genealogical history of the central character(s). That the compiler of the AM 234 fol. begins with an appeal to the auctoritas of scripture (the Gospel of Matthew) and one of the masters of biblical interpretation (St. Jerome) is not necessarily suggestive of any uneasiness about relying on apocrypha to complete his saga as this type of appeal is a common topos. It does indicate, however, that the compiler hopes to cede some responsibility for the history and theology that the saga contains. The remainder of the prologue reminds the audience of Mary’s familial connection to King David and to the patriarch Abraham as it is told in the “vpp hafvi” (the beginning) of the Gospel of Matthew. The prologue in AM 234 fol. then points out that this lineage is important because it means that the Virgin Mary, and her son Jesus, came into a both royal and priestly family (konvnga kyns ok kennimanna). A brief summary of what is to come in the saga – her birth in Nazareth, her childhood in Jerusalem and the temple, her love for and service to God, her continual prayer, her reading of the prophets (spamanna bokvm), and her exemplary behavior for the other virgins in the temple – is related before the saga begins at 29ra14 with the introduction of Mary’s parents Joachim and Anne.66 The prologue of the St-redaction (1va–1vb19, Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11) is only slightly longer than the one preferred by the scribes copying the A-family manuscripts. The additional material is made up mostly of epithets for the Virgin Mary and occurs at the beginning of the prologue: “Drotning himins ok iarðar. sæl ok dyrðlig mær maria. moðir drottins Iesus Xristz. blomi hreinlifis. herbergi heilags anda. Øllum helgum mønnum æðri. helgari ok haleitari. er komin at kynferðj af kongligri ætt eptir þvi sem segir en gaufgi kenni maðr (ok

Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 2013), and her paper from the 2013 meeting of the Medieval Translator conference (held at KU Leuven in Belgium), “Translations of Authorities in Old Norse Hagiography: The Example of Jóns saga baptista” (https://www.academia.edu/6454459/ Translations_of_Authorities_in_Old_Norse_Hagiography._The_Example_of_Jons_saga_bap tista). See also Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir “Prose of Christian Instruction,” in A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature, pp. 338–53 and Simonetta Battista, “Old Norse Hagiography and the Question of the Latin Sources,” in Scandinavia and Christian Europe in the Middle Ages: Papers of the 12th International Saga Conference, ed. Rudolf Simek and Judith Muerer (Bonn, 2005), pp. 26–33. 66 In AM 633 4to, one of the two eighteenth-century copies of now lost manuscripts, this summary is not appended to the prologue but is instead marked as the first chapter of the saga. AM 232 fol. and AM 634/635 4to, both of the A-family, follow the prologue format of AM 234 fol.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

39

enn)67 dyrðligri prestr Jeronimus” (Queen of heaven and earth, blessed and glorious Virgin Mary, mother of Lord Jesus Christ, flower of virginity, fortress of the holy spirit, to all other saints holier and more sublime, who is descended from a royal family according to the noble teacher and honorable priest Jerome). Apparent here is the same concern to establish the auctoritas for the saga and the Virgin Mary’s genealogical origins but what is also clearly established by the prologue of the Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 is the laudatory tone of the narrative; the saga then, in addition to everything else it hopes to achieve, aims to display devotional love for the Virgin Mary throughout the manuscript. The manufacturers of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (the E-redaction) apparently found sufficient cause to include two prologues. The first, running from 1v to 3r, is a wordy and at times repetitive preface to the saga. The second prologue, copied from 3vra1–3vra26, is identical to AM 234 fol. and thus the A-family of manuscripts. The first prologue begins and ends with the performative readings “J nafni faudr oc sonar ok anda heilags drottins uors herra Iesu Xristz byriazt hier prologus fyrir agæta lifs saugo uolldugra fru sancte Marie” (in the name of the father and son and holy ghost, our Lord Jesus Christ, here begins the prologue for the renowned life saga of the mighty lady St. Mary)68 and “ . . . huar er lifir ok rikir drottinn uor oc lausnare Iesus Xristus. Per omnia secula seculorem. A-M-E-N. Maria mater dei miserere mei” ( . . . where lives and reigns our lord and savior Jesus Christ. Through all the ages of ages. AMEN. Mary, mother of God, have mercy on me)69 and thus immediately demonstrates a potentially liturgical utility for the manuscript.70 The author of the introduction to Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 also seeks to make evident the auctoritas for the saga. This is achieved through references to the works “Floribus uirginis”71 and “Compendium theologie.”72 What is largely absent from

67 There is a hole in the manuscript here. Heizmann, Das Altisändische Marienleben, vol. 2, p. 121, suggests adding “ok enn.” 68 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va1–1va4. 69 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 3vb23–3vb25. 70 This point is also made by Tomassini. See An Analysis, pp. 225–28. 71 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va21. 72 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1vb3. The “Compendium theologie” cited here is clearly the Compendium theologicae veritatis of the Dominican Hugh Ripelin of Strasburg (1205–1270). Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir has shown that this work was well known in Iceland. See her article “Dómsdagslýsing í AM 764 4to,” Opuscula 20 (1996): 186–93 and dissertation Universal History in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Studies in AM 764 4to (PhD diss., University of London, 2000), pp. 206–16. See also the entry for Hugh of Ripelin’s work on the Islandia Latina database: http://islandialatina.hum.ku.dk/Show.aspx?Work=277. The Floribus uirginis referred to in the

40

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

this prologue, in comparison to the other manuscripts, is any regard for the genealogy of the Virgin Mary. Instead, the author of the prologue to the E-redaction regards the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of the Virgin Mary, her role in the incarnation, her absolute singularity, and her predilection for merciful intercession (all attributes that are intimately connected) more deserving of adoration and amplification in the encomium preceding the saga. The Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 scribe’s preoccupation with Mary’s perpetual virginity and role in the incarnation is established early. Mary is both an “ofleckut mær ok friosaum modir” (unstained virgin and fertile mother).73 Because she bore the son of God in her womb, her body came to be “geislande af guddomsins velldi” (shining from the power of the godhood).74 This sentiment is repeated only a few lines down when the author reminds the audience that Mary’s acceptance of the incarnation left her shining “bædi hennar aund oc likamur med liose guddomsins” (both in her soul and body with the light of the godhood).75 The author also reveals sympathy towards the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: “þegar J fyrsta tima er hun uar helgut J modr kuide uar hun frabærelig huerium sem einum iardligum manne er getinn uar af likamligu saade” (from the first moment when she was sanctified in her mother’s womb she was then surpassing each earthly child who was begotten through bodily sowing).76 Mary’s perpetual virginity is not only of interest to the author of the prologue as a model for behavior, though. It is through her “obrigdiligt meydomsins blom” (unbroken flower of maidenhood) that Jesus came to terrify death (daudinn ottaz) and made hell shake with fear (enn heluite skialfanda hrædizt).77 The author’s praise of the Virgin Mary’s singularity is also not simply an exhortation to imitation; it is through her singularity, according to the author, that Mary intercedes on behalf of her devotees. Mary’s “nafn einglunum er hinn sætazte fagnadr j himiríkis haull” (name to angels is the sweetest joy in the

prologue is more difficult to identify. A book with a similar title, Flores beatæ Virginis, is listed among the possessions of the Augustinian Viðeyjarklaustr in 1397. See DI, vol. 4, p. 110. How the author of the prologue actually used these authorities in the saga is unclear. This redactor is not the only one to seek out additional material to expand Maríu saga. For example, the redactor of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 supplements the saga’s account of Mary’s lineage with a passage from the Trinubium Annae. The second prologue in the manuscript (3vra–3vra26), since it is identical to AM 234 fol. (the A-family), maintains the appeal to the authority of Jerome and the Gospel of Matthew. 73 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va6. 74 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va20–1va21. 75 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1vb1–1vb2. 76 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1vb19–1vb22. 77 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 2va5–2va6.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

41

heavenly hall).78 She is “hærre” and “helgare” than “aullum helgum” (more glorious and holier than all saints).79 It is because of this, the prologue author suggests, that Mary is “skinande, koronut upp sitiande næst almattigum gude” (shining, crowned and sitting above next to almighty God).80 Her placement in heaven next to God and among the angels allows her to be “paradisar port” (the gate to paradise)81 and the “port idrande manna” (gate for the repentant).82 This is why, the prologue author argues, “skulum uier þo alldre af letta aa medann uier lifum J þessum heime hana at lofa oc dyrka uegsama oc uirda” (we should always, without reservation, love, glorify, and esteem her while we live in this world).83 Because Mary is the “o mæliligr brunnur milldinnar oc modir myskunnarinnar” (unmeasurable well of kindness and mother of mercy)84 the audience is urged to call on her so that she will intercede with her son to “leysir oss þann synda” (release us from that sin) which threatens to “draga til eilifs o fagnadr” (drag us to eternal misery).85 It is clear that the length and tone of the first prologue is quite different from the second preface and saga that follows. The presence of these two prologues in the E-redaction has led to some speculation that the first one (1v–3r) might have been added later. Laura Tomassini does not reach a conclusion, but does point out that the “long and wordy prologue” preceding E “does not stylistically correspond to the rest of the composition.”86 The manuscript tradition leaves no doubt that the prologue of E was composed much later, probably around the middle of the fourteenth century, and thus is not connected to the original composition of the saga. The material aspects of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 are, however, suggestive of the first prologue being included in the codex at the onset of writing. While the seven-line richly decorated initial “S” in “suo seiger hinn sæli Jeronimus prestr” (3v) clearly announces a new text and could give the impression that this page was once the first of this copy since the red descending “J” (1v) in “J nafni faudr oc sonar ok anda” is of a much simpler design, the structure of the manuscript must be taken into account. 1v and 3v are both written in the same hand (as is the whole manuscript) and are part of the

78 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va6–1va8. 79 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va10–1va12. 80 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 1va12–1va14. 81 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 2ra26. 82 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 2rb1. 83 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 2ra10–2ra12. 84 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 3ra10–3r11. 85 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 3rb5–3rb6. 86 Tomassini, An Analysis, p. 17.

42

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

first quire (ending at 7v). It is therefore likely that the scribe copied an existing text of Maríu saga (closer to the A-redaction) and added a new prologue to contextualize the saga for the audience of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1. Determining a precise audience for Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 is complicated, as I have already suggested is the case for the majority of Icelandic manuscripts, but a specific address in the prologue and the history of the manuscript can provide some insight into the origins of the codex. At 1vb14 the scribe of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 addresses the audience as “systr minar kæruztu” (my dear sisters). The only other manuscript that preserves this version of the prologue, the slightly older fragment AM 240 IX fol., records only “minir kieruzstu” (my dearest ones).87 The inclusion of “systr” in the address in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 must be a deliberate choice by the scribe, and the fixation on Mary’s perpetual virginity could be taken as further evidence that the intended audience of this copy is a congregation of nuns, though the subject would have been of equal importance to a community of monks. If a congregation of nuns was indeed connected to either the production of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 or its consumption, then that narrows down its provenance to two possible institutions. There were only two convents in medieval Iceland, both of which were Benedictine. The first was established in 1186 at Kirkjubær within the southern diocese of Skálholt. The second, Reynistaður, was founded in 1295 in the northern diocese of Hólar. Reynistaður was situated in Skagafjörður and was thus not far from the Benedictines at Munkaþverá (est. 1155) and the Augustinians at Möðruvallaklaustur (both in Eyjafjörður). Little is known of the history Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 before its arrival in Sweden.88 The manuscript came to be in the possession of the Swedish scholar Olaus Verelius (1618–1682) in Uppsala. How Verelius obtained the manuscript is unknown.89 One possibility is that the manuscript was acquired through the Icelandic student Jón Rúgman Jónsson (1636–1679), who is known to have

87 See Tomassini, An Analysis, p. 227. 88 On 174r “Auduin brinjols son” has recorded his name in the margin. This, presumably, was recorded before the manuscript traveled to Sweden. I have searched to no avail through the index of names in the Handrit.is database and Páll Eggert Ólason’s Íslenzkar Æviskrár frá Landnámstímum til Ársloka 1940, 6 vols. (Reykjavík: Íslenzka Bókmenntafélags, 1948–1976). 89 Verelius, at least for this manuscript, did not keep detailed notes of where it was acquired. He did record the following: “Membrana haec continet Historiam beatae virginis Mariæ. Deinde Pontificum Episcoporum Monachorum aliorumqve res gestas eorumqve vitæ historias continet.” Vilhelm Gödel notes in his catalogue of manuscripts of the Kungliga Biblioteket “Om handskriftens historia för öfrigt är ingenting kändt” (on the history of the manuscript nothing else is known). See Gödel, Katalog öfver Kongl. Bibliotekets Fornisländska ock Fornnorska Handskrifter (Stockholm: Kungl. Boktrvckeriet, P.A. Norsteut & Soner, 1897–1900), pp. 34–35.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

43

collaborated with Verelius on his research into the sagas.90 Jón Rúgman grew up at Rúgsstöðum í Eyjafirði, not far from Munkaþverá, Möðruvallaklaustur, and Reynistaður. If Jón Rúgman is the source of the manuscript’s transmission to Verelius and Sweden, then the convent at Reynistaður is a likely place of origin or ownership of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1.91 The fact that Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 and AM 764 4to, which was written by or for the nuns at Reynistaður, share some Marian miracles in common could be another indication that Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 is associated with the convent.92 Although Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 preserves an entirely unique prologue that recommends a specific audience, its final chapter is unremarkable in the manuscript tradition. Concluding commentaries in each of the manuscript copies are brief, ranging in length between twenty-one to forty-four lines in the doublecolumn manuscripts. Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (the St-redaction) is the only manuscript with a separate chapter heading for the author’s final remarks on the saga. The title to the final chapter in this manuscript, “um kenning” (on the lesson), reveals an author (or perhaps scribe) who is interested not only in interpreting the significance of the saga for the audience but also in partitioning that section from the rest of the narrative into an easily locatable position on the page. The final sections of each of the three redactions of the saga begin similarly. Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, after the chapter heading “um kenning,” tells the audience: “Nv er sagt nackvat fra lifi .eða. vpp rvn sællar fru Marie. Guðs. moður. til þess. at þeir er lesa. eða. heyra. mætti skilia. henni til lofs ok dyrþar. en ser til hialpar ok miskunar ok trva at hon er langt vm fram aþra helga menn i sinni dyrð ok verð leikum fyrir. Guði” (Now is said something of the life and youth of the Virgin Mary, God’s Mother, so that those who read or hear it may set her apart for praise and glory and look to her help and mercy and believe that she is far beyond other saints in her glory and merit before God).93 Each scribe has

90 For a brief biography of Jón Rúgman, see Páll Eggert Ólason’s Íslenzkar Æviskrár, vol. 3, p. 251. 91 Another possible source for the manuscript’s journey to Sweden is Jón Eggertsson (1643–1689). Jón Eggertsson was also from the region near Möðruvallaklaustur and is connected to a few other manuscripts that eventually came to the Kungliga Biblioteket. On those manuscripts, see Már Jónsson, Arnas Magnæus Philologus, pp. 43–44. 92 The two manuscripts both contain miralces concerning Mary and Pope Gregory the Great, Dominic, and the Vision of Elisabeth of Schönau. The miracles are not identical in the manuscripts, though, and the versions of Elisabeth’s Vision, especially, differ in some key places. On AM 764 4to, see Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, Universal History in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Studies in AM 764 4to. AM 764 4to is also discussed further in chapter 4. 93 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (26va11–27vb). AM 234 fol. has: “Nv er sagtt nockvt fra lifvi eða vpprvna frv sancte Marie (39vb) gvðs moðvr til þess at þeir er lesa eða heyra mætti skilia henni

44

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

private readers and communal listeners in mind, revealing the possible settings for interaction with the saga. The point of the narrative is made clear in each redaction as well. The saga is meant to reveal the exemplarity of Mary and promote her as the ideal object of prayers for intercession: “skulom ver a hana kalla til arnaðarorðz fyrst allra heilagra manna” (we should call on her intercession first among all saints).94 The noun “árnaðarorð,” as I have already pointed out, features in all the manuscripts containing prologues to the miracles95 and each legend is an example of Mary’s intercession on the behalf of her devotees. The beneficiaries of the Virgin Mary’s intercession are from a variety of social classes and in different stages of spiritual development; the compilers of the manuscripts thus sought miracles that would appeal to a diverse audience of Icelanders interested in hearing proof of Mary’s “árnaðarorði.” It is clear that Maríu saga maintained textual, scribal, stylistic, and structural stability in the manuscript tradition, despite the fact that the copies range in date from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century. This is not to say that there was uniformity. There is obvious variation among the manuscripts. Some of the modifications chosen by scribes are minor, but they are revelatory of how the scribes imagined and then produced the manuscript and how they wanted

til lofs ok dyrðar ser til hialpar ok miskvnnar ok trva at hvn er langt vm aðra helga menn i sinni dyrð ok verðleikvm fyr gvði” (39va43–39vb4). Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 reads: “Nu er sagt nockut fra life sællar Guds modr Marie til þess at þeir er lesa eda heyra mætte skilia henni til lofs eda dyrdar. Enn sier til hialpar oc myskunnar. Oc trua at hun er langt umframm adra helga menn j sinne dyrd oc uerdleikum” (16va19–16va23). 94 Stock. Perg 4to no. 11 (26vb2–26vb3). AM 234 fol.: “skolvm ver aa hana kalla. Til arnaðar orðz fyrst allra heilagra manna” (39vb5–39vb6). Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1: “skolum uier hana kalla til arnadar ordz frst allra heilagra manna” (16va23–16va24). 95 These are AM 234 fol. (39vb30–40ra13), AM 633 4to (119–20), AM 634/635 4to (114–15), Stock. Perg. no. 1 4to (16vb10–17ra22), and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (27va1–28ra21). AM 232 fol. is the only complete manuscript of the saga that does not contain a prologue to the miracles. The miracle of Theophilus begins at 66v9. Though there is no general prologue to the miracles, the first few lines of Theophilus do indicate the usefulness of the “dýrlegra iartegna fru sancte Marie” (glorious miracles of our lady St. Mary). The miracles “styrkia miog hiortu sýndugra manna til mikillar vanar guðs miskunnar” (greatly strengthen the hearts of sinners to the great hope of God’s mercy). The prologue to the miracles in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 is greatly expanded in comparison to the AM 234 fol. version. The scribe adds, for example, that the miracles should “vakne hugir rettlatra manna til nøckurs athuga ok styrkiaz i hennar ast” (awaken the minds of the righteous to some devotion and to strengthen them in her love), 27vb4–27vb6. In order to secure the Virgin Mary’s assistance, the scribe encourages the audience to pray “dagliga mey Mariam, at þeirar miskunnar arni hon oss af syni sinum, at a siþarstu stundu varra lifdaga hafim ver ok halldim retta tru” (daily to the Virgin Mary that she intercedes through her mercy for us before her son, so that at the last moment of our life we have and hold the true faith), 27vb23–27vb27.

Chapter 1 Manuscript Variation in the Design and Contents of Maríu saga

45

its users to interact with the texts contained in the codex. Minor scribal innovations, such as the ordinatio of the saga, the titles of chapters, the use of initials and other textual cues to highlight narrative units are all obscured if study of Maríu saga is divorced from the material objects – produced for specific institutions and audiences – that preserve the text. The scribes of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11, as I have shown, were clearly concerned with the reading experience and, aside from those who copied AM 233 a fol., are alone in their method of breaking up longer sections of continuous text. Two types of Maríu saga manuscripts emerge from examination of the tradition: the Marian codex containing the life and miracles of the Virgin Mary, and the legendary codex recording the life of Mary, her miracles, and the biographies and deeds of other saints arranged according to the church calendar. Nearly identical passages in Maríu saga that might be seen as revealing textual stability in an edition such as Unger’s can take on new meanings, depending on the type of codex, when read as part of a manuscript whole. This method of reading and its implications for some extended discussions of the virtues in two manuscripts of Maríu saga is the subject of the next chapter.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience) in the Skálholt Lectionaries AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. As I have already stressed, the genre of hagiography is found in the oldest Old Norse-Icelandic vellum fragments and is witnessed in more manuscripts than any of the other vernacular genres. The lives of native and foreign saints were not only consumed among clerics in the monastery either. The available evidence from Icelandic scriptoria and knowledge about the commissioning and owning of manuscripts suggests that the genre was popular and of practical utility among the Icelandic elite and others among the laity.1 The saints were extolled as exemplars of moral behavior and valued as intermediaries between supplicants and God.2 Since the late twentieth century, Karen A. Winstead observes, critics have recognized that saints’ lives are “not just about piety and spirituality but also politics, economics, social control, gender, and sexuality, and that what their authors have to say on these topics is intended to be relevant to, and sometimes critical of, contemporary life.”3 The genre’s literary qualities and its commentary on contemporary life and the construction of culture no doubt contributed to its popularity. In Iceland, the sagas of saints appealed to generations of Icelandic readers, according to Siân E. Grønlie, because Saints’ Lives are sophisticated literary texts, with much to offer the saga authors. They combine heroic narrative with a strong ideological challenge to secular heroism and material values. The world of the saint’s life is one in which the invisible and spiritual takes on material form: it seeks to transcend historical particularity and reaches towards the interrelatedness of all times and places. Saints offer a model of virtue in the daily struggle against sin and temptation, and throw into relief the eschatological trajectory of human life. Most importantly, perhaps, the saints were not just literary characters to the medieval Icelanders, but a powerful and active presence in their lives.4

1 On the most recent account of the production of religious and secular literature at the Icelandic scriptoria see Siân E. Grønlie, The Saint and the Saga Hero, p. 23. 2 On the genre of hagiography and its function in the medieval church, see Thomas Head, ed., Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology (New York: Routledge, 2001). On the genre in medieval Scandinavia, see Thomas A. DuBois, ed., Sanctity in the North: Saints, Lives, and Cults in Medieval Scandinavia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008). 3 Karen A. Winstead, “Saintly Exemplarity,” in Oxford Twenty-First Century Approaches to Literature: Middle English, ed. Paul Strohm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 335–51. 4 Grønlie, The Saint and the Saga Hero, p. ix. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-003

48

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

No saint had a more powerful or active presence in the daily lives of Icelanders than the Virgin Mary. Ecclesiastics and the laity would have encountered her liturgy, her miracles, and her saga regularly both in communal and private settings. The manuscripts containing Maríu saga transmit the sagas of other saints as well who were offered as additional models for imitation and supplication. That a saga of the Virgin Mary or the manuscripts containing it would model virtues for its readers and listeners is unremarkable. From its origins hagiography has been a genre concerned with virtuous living. As István Bejczy has observed, the “heroic” performance of the virtues “became an official criterion for confessors to be canonized as saints.”5 The virtues have always punctuated the vitae of saints and appear “as ingredients of the moral and spiritual life which offer protection against sin and provide a road to heaven.”6 Bejczy has also noted that the “exegetical and hagiographical use of the virtues also has the wider effect of imbedding the virtues in the divine order of the universe. Acting through the virtues, God manifests himself in his Word, his Creation, and the workings of his saints.”7 The virtues prepared the faithful for the life to come and were thus of the utmost practical importance in the present. Acknowledging that the manuscripts of Maríu saga are unremarkable in their presentation of and insistence on the virtues does not mean that they have little else to reveal about the moral framework permeating each leaf of the codices. Two related Icelandic manuscripts containing Maríu saga, AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., exemplify the importance of repetitive reinforcement of Christian virtues for not only monastics engaged in private reading and contemplation but also the lay audience listening to the texts being read during festivals and other church services and the students interacting with the codices during their schooling. These manuscripts also reveal – through the choice of saints’ legends, scriptural passages, and exegetical commentary which were included – which virtues in particular preoccupied the institutions that produced and then later owned and utilized the manuscripts. Each of the works in these two manuscripts was compiled or composed at different dates and possibly for different purposes and audiences. The collections are ahistorical; the saints included in the manuscripts represent the breadth of Christendom temporally and geographically. Their lives, experiences, and the 5 István Bejczy, The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages: A Study in Moral Thought from the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 1. 6 Bejczy, The Cardinal Virtues, p. 52. 7 Bejczy, The Cardinal Virtues, p. 53.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

49

reasons for their sainthood are often quite different. What unifies these often disparate figures is their saintliness and their dedication to a virtuous life. Gathered together here, then, in repositories of saints’ legends in the vernacular produced by or for the episcopal see and cathedral school at Skálholt, the texts’ repetitive insistence on the virtues is offered for the edification of the readers, hearers, and students beginning training in devotional life. The repeated references to virtuous living in both manuscripts approach monotony. In Maríu saga in AM 234 fol. we read about “alla mannkostv” (all the virtues), the “andliga mannkosti” (the spiritual virtues), “alltt mankosta lan hafði hvn af syni sinvm” (all the virtues she had received from her son), and that Mary “var prydd mavrgvm mannkostvm” (was adorned by many virtues). The same is said of the Icelander Jón Ögmundsson in AM 234 fol.: he “var prydr með morgvm mannkostvm.” St. Anthony relies on the weapons of “krapta” (the virtues) throughout his saga to stave off demons. The saga of St. Paul, preceding Maríu saga in the codex, relates that he “helldi” to the “mannkosti.” The prologue to Vitae Patrum in AM 234 fol. reminds the audience that the desert monks “ganga veg kraptanna” (go on the path of virtues). In AM 235 fol. we observe “kröptum” and “mannkostum” being practiced by Martha and Mary Magdalen. The saga of Fides, Spes, and Caritas opens with the observation that “magra fagra bloma mannkostanna skina” (many beautiful blossoms of the virtues shine) in the saints; the saga of Martin of Tours suggests similarly of the famous bishop, noting that he is “þa er skinn fyrir gvði i avllvm krapta blomvm” (the one who shines before God blossoming in all the virtues). This monotonous recounting of saintly virtue is precisely the point of these manuscripts, though. While there is an abundance of references to the virtues generally, in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. the sagas of the saints tend to exemplify the monastic virtues of “lítillæti” (humility) and “þolinmæði” (patience) specifically. These virtues are of course apparent in other texts in the manuscripts of Maríu saga (Jóns saga baptista II, for example); the point here, again, is the repetition exhibited in lectionaries deliberately produced to be read and recited in communal settings and to be utilized by students in the cathedral school. It is difficult to know for certain why the virtues of humility and patience in particular were emphasized for the communities surrounding Skálholt – the obvious monastic connections aside. It is certainly speculative to suggest, but there may be Icelandic specific cultural reasons for the particular virtues emphasized in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. Humility was long considered an appropriate contrary virtue to the expression of pride and boasting which we find so frequently in the Íslendingasögur and konungasögur and that we know

50

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

was prevalent in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Icelandic politics. Patience served as a powerful response to other common occurrences in the sagas, anger and violence. The episcopal see at Skálholt was established in 1056; the prominent Icelander Ísleifur Gissurarson (d. 1080), who was educated in Herford, was installed as the first bishop. At its founding Skálholt was within the archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen. After 1104 Skálholt became part of the archdiocese of Lund before being incorporated into the archdiocese of Niðaróss after 1153.8 Skálholt remained an important center for Icelandic cultural and political life throughout the Middle Ages and after the Reformation. The cathedral school educated many prominent Icelanders, including the majority of bishops who would later oversee the institution. Skálholt was also a large farm and thus politically significant. AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. can both be linked to the cultural and devotional center of Skálholt, though whether the manuscripts were copied there or simply housed and employed in the monastery and school remains less certain.9 AM 234 fol., the older of the two manuscripts, was written ca. 1340 by two scribes10 and was once likely double its current size of eighty-one leaves and

8 Under the jurisdiction of Skálholt were, among others, four houses of Augustinian friars and one convent of Benedictine nuns: Þykkvibær (est. 1168), Flatey (est. 1172), Helgafell (est. 1184), Viðey (est. 1226), and Kirkjubær (est. 1186). 9 Seventeenth-century marginalia and Árni Magnússon’s notes suggest that both manuscripts were owned by the cathedral at Skálholt. See the entries for each manuscript on the Handrit.is website: https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM02-0234, https://handrit.is/en/manu script/view/da/AM02-0235. Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 53, suggests also that “it may be noticed in passing that the new Viðey community would have made an appropriate destination for the lectionary represented by AM 234 fol., whether this was entirely derived from AM 221 fol. or not; or the possibility might be considered that the 221 collection was a Viðey book, now renewed in handsome fashion. It happens that of the saints featured in the codex the Blessed Virgin, St. Paul and St. Augustine are among the several to whom the Viðey church was dedicated, and the St. Thomas among those to whom the south altar in the church was dedicated, is much more likely to have been Becket than Didymus. The life of St. Anthony and the associated Vitae Patrum made proper monastic reading. A life of Jón Ogmundarson, Iceland’s second native saint, might be at home anywhere, but if Bishop Jón Sigurðarson had belonged to Þingeyrar (the only other choice is Þverá, also in the Hólar diocese), and possibly had monks from there to help establish the new house on Viðey, he and they could be credited with special regard for Jón helgi as patron saint of their diocese and the putative founder and acknowledged benefactor of their northern monastery.” 10 Hand A writes fols. 1–61v. Hand B begins at 62ra and ends at 73r. The rest of fol. 73 (recto and verso) is blank. Hand A also writes fols. 79–81; Hand B is also found on fols. 74–78. See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 10.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

51

fragments of leaves.11 With the exception of a few leaves, titles, chapter headings, and illuminations were never finished despite the fact that ample space was prepared for them. According to Árni Magnússon, the Icelandic historian Þormóður Torfason (1636–1719) reported seeing the manuscript in his youth at Skálholt and suggested that it was twice as large before schoolboys ripped leaves out of it for use as book-wrappers.12 AM 234 fol. is, as I noted in the first chapter, one of the largest extant medieval Icelandic manuscripts and if the codex had been completed,13 it would have been an impressive collection fitting an institution like Skálholt. In its present state the manuscript contains, in order, Antóníus saga (1–19vb23), Páls saga postola (19vb24–28vb1), a miracle concerned with the birth of the Virgin Mary (28vb2–25), Maríu saga (28vb28–39vb29), fifty-six Marian miracles preceded by a prologue (39vb30–55vb30), Jóns saga helga (55vb32–67ra16), Ágústínus saga (67ra19–73rb25), Vitae Patrum (74–78), and Thómas saga erkibyskups (79–81). The beginning of Antóníus saga is missing approximately two leaves; they were apparently already missing when Árni Magnusson first encountered the manuscript.14 Thómas saga erkibyskups, originally the first text in the manuscript, and Vitae Patrum, originally the last text, have suffered the most loss.15 Árni Magnússon first came across AM 234 fol. in 1687 when it was on loan with Thomas Bartholin (1616–1680) and at the time it was lacking the beginning of Antóníus saga but Páls saga postola and Ágústínus saga were complete.16 AM 234 fol. then went back to Iceland, and then back to Árni Magnússon in 1699. When it came back to him it lacked further leaves in

11 See Peter Foote’s estimate for the size of the collection in his introduction to Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, pp. 8–9. 12 See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 13 and the entry for the manuscript on the Handrit.is site: https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM02-0234. 13 See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 51, for possible reasons as to the unfinished state of the codex: “Given the probability that AM 234 fol. was written towards or about 1350 and at Skálholt, we cannot avoid reviewing circumstances which might explain why work on it was never finished. Bad winters, earth tremors, a Hekla eruption, serious dearth, death of farmstock, all occurred during that period (IslAnn., 207–209, 213, 349–52, 353–54, s.a. 1336, 1339, 1341, 1348) . . . It is probably more significant that three bishops died in that time: a lavish undertaking like 234 was likely to require the highest sanction and the investment of one diocesan would not necessarily be continued by a successor.” 14 See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, pp. 8, 11–12. 15 Through a comparison to other copies of Thómas saga erkibyskups and Vitae Patrum, Foote estimates that the codex must have once contained over one hundred leaves. Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 9. 16 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, pp. 11–12.

52

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

Antóníus saga, one leaf in Páls saga postola (between fols. 26 and 27), and part of a leaf (fol. 72) in Ágústínus saga.17 AM 235 fol., the younger of the manuscripts, was copied by three scribes around 1400.18 Árni Magnússon acquired the manuscript in 1711 from Þorleifur Árnason, a scribe for Brynjólfur Sveinsson (1605–1675), bishop of Skálholt.19 AM 235 fol. now contains sixty-eight leaves and the present contents are as follows: Hallvarðs saga (1ra1–1ra12), Jóns saga baptista (1ra13–2vb), Sebastianus saga (3ra–4vb), Agnesar saga meyjar (4vb9–4vb37), Maríu saga egipzku (5ra–6vb27), Magnús saga Eyjajarls hin skamma (6vb27–10vb20), Jóns saga Hólabiskups (10vb20–12vb), Pétrs saga postola (13ra–17va), Margrétar saga (17vb–19rb21), Martha saga ok Maríu Magðalenu (19rb21–30ra), Ólafs saga hins helga (30rb–36vb6), Fídesar saga, Spesar ok Karítasar (36vb7–38va6), Lárentíus saga erkidjákns (38va7–41ra18), Saga vorrar frú20 and two Marian miracles (41ra19–42vb17), Ágústínus saga (42vb18–49rb27), Mauritius saga (49rb27–52vb17), Díónysíuss saga (52vb18–55rb33), Flagellatio crucis – Kross saga (55rb33–56ra), Theódórs saga (56rb–57rb), Marteins saga biskups (57va–66va), and Cecilíu saga meyjar (66va–68vb). The manuscript has suffered significant loss. Peter Foote estimates that at least four gatherings are totally lost and that the volume once originally contained 112 leaves at least.21 There are also numerous lacunae in the gatherings that remain. Fols. 1 and 2 are the middle pair of a lost gathering that belonged between fols. 12 and 13.22 Fols. 3 and 4 originally opened the codex; there are an unknown number of lost items between fols. 3, 4 (the sagas of Sebastian and Agnes), and

17 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, pp. 11–12. 18 Hand A writes fols. 1–4, 5–13vb12, 14–19rb21. Hand B writes the remainder of fol. 13v from 13vb12–13vb38. Hand C writes the rest of fol. 19r (19rb22) and the rest of the codex (to 68v). Titles and chapter headings are written by another hand throughout. 19 See the manuscript’s entry at the Handrit.is database: https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/ view/da/AM02-0235. As I have already pointed out, seventeenth-century marginalia connect the codex to the cathedral at Skálholt. On fol. 3v a marginal note mentions Bishop Ögmundur Pálsson (appointed 1519). Another note on fol. 64v reveals that the codex belonged to Brynjólfur Sveinsson. The codex thus spent most of its life at Skálholt, even if it was not originally composed there. See also Natalie M. Van Deusen’s article on the marginalia and embroidery patterns in the manuscript: “Stitches in the Margins: The Embroidery Pattern in AM 235 fol,” Maal og Minne 2 (2001): 26–42. 20 This is an abbreviated extract of the chapters concerning the death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary. 21 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 79. 22 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 78.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

53

fol. 5 (the saga of Mary of Egypt).23 Some items once housed in AM 235 fol. have been identified. Agnete Loth has, for example, demonstrated that the fragment AM 921 V 4to once belonged to the manuscript.24 Both manuscripts appear to have been intended for communal, ecclesiastical use rather than for private reading, though the presence of Vitae Patrum in AM 234 fol. could suggest private consumption as well. As I have already admitted, it is not unusual or remarkable that two manuscripts containing the lives of saints – and especially manuscripts produced or owned by a cathedral school – would model virtues for the listening or reading audience. What interests me here is how our understanding of the manuscripts’ presentation of the virtues lítillæti and þolinmæði and their utility might be expanded and/or complicated by reading each of the codices in their entirety and thus the sagas in dialogue with one another. In both manuscripts the virtues are imagined as weapons (folkvapnn mannkostanna)25 to be employed in the unending war against sin, temptation, and the forces of evil.26 The virtues lítillæti and þolinmæði recur throughout Maríu saga and are clearly considered to be dependent on each other, but it is the Virgin Mary’s humility that is presented as most prominent in her life and is found most frequently in the other sagas of saints in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. Throughout the manuscripts humility is depicted as both a practical virtue for the supplicant in need of mercy or some other form of intercession – in fact, intercession is not guaranteed if it is not requested humbly – and as a way of life, a habit, for the cloistered.

23 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, p. 77. 24 “Roted fragmentum membraneum, um Sanctam Luciam og Agatham. AM 921, V, 4to,” in Fetskrift til Ludvig Holm-Olsen på hans 70-årsdag den 9. juni 1984 (Øvre Ervik: Alvheim & Eide, 1984), pp. 221–35. Like AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., there are pen trials and other marginalia that suggest the manuscript was used by schoolchildren at Skálholt. I am grateful to Natalie M. Van Deusen for pointing this out to me. 25 This image is found at 39va35 in AM 234 fol. and 42rb7 in AM 235 fol. Variations of this image occur in other sagas in the manuscripts and especially the saga of St. Anthony, who spent so many years combatting the temptations of demons in the desert through “kraptavopnvm.” 26 Militarization of the virtues is common in Latin religious texts contemporary to Maríu saga. William of Auvergne’s (d. 1249) treatise on the vices and virtues (De virtutibus et vitiis, part of Magisterium divinale et sapientiale), for example, imagines patience as protective armor for the hearts of saints against the darts of the demons they are engaging in spiritual warfare. See Roland J. Teske, trans., On the Virtues: Part One of On the Virtues and Vices (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2009), p. 117.

54

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

The Virgin Mary’s humility had been established as a tradition by the Gospel of Luke’s recounting of the Annunciation: “Quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae: ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes” (Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed).27 This tradition was maintained by the early fathers of the church, exegetes of the early Middle Ages, scholars of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and after the Reformation.28 Humilitas was from the earliest days of monastic culture crucial to cloistered life, as is made clear by the foundational role given to the virtue in the regulae of Sts. Augustine and Benedict. Humilitas had such primacy in the regula of St. Benedict that it was conceived of as a scala (a ladder) made of twelve rungs that required labor to ascend. Each of the steps to humility received an extensive commentary in Bernard of Clairvaux’s (d. 1153) first treatise, De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae.29 Bonaventure (d. 1274), a near contemporary to the compiler of Maríu saga, identified humilitas as the “radix” (root) and “fundamentum” (foundation) of all the other virtues throughout his works.30

27 Luke 1:48, http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49001.htm. 28 Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) called attention to the fact that Mary responded to Gabriel with humility rather than pride, even though she had just been given the highest honor, see Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. Liber II, 16. Patrologia Latina 15, 1558–1559. Bede reiterated this point in his Homilia prima. In festo Annuntiationis Beatae Mariae. Patrologia Latina 94, 14. On both, see José María Salvador González, “The Virgin Mary as a Model of Obedience in the Patristic Tradition and Her Representation in the Late Medieval Iconography of the Annunciation,” Social Sciences and Humanities Journal 110.8 (August 2015): 6 and 8. Humility and the Virgin Mary’s exemplarity of the virtue feature significantly also in, for example, Augustine’s De sancta virginitate and Bernard of Clairvaux’s sermons on the Virgin Mary. Mary’s humble reception of the Annunciation was also a regular feature of artistic depictions of the event, including those often preserved in Books of Hours. 29 The ascending steps of humility are opposed to the descending steps of pride. Bernard assumes that monks will rise and fall on the steps; the ascent will be a prolonged endeavor. Near the beginning of his treatise Bernard defines humility: “humilitas est virtus, qua homo verissima sui cognitione sibi ipse vilescit” (it is the virtue which enables a man to see himself in his true colors and thereby to discover his worthlessness), De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae 1.2, trans. William Edmund Fahey, ed., The Foundations of Western Monasticism (Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, TAN Books, 2013), p. 190. 30 De perfectione vitae ad sorores 2.1: “Sic fundamentum omnium virtutum est humilitas”; Lignum Vitae 2.5: “Ab humilitate sumens initium, quae omnium est radix custosque virtutum”; Legenda S. Francisci 6.1: “Omnium virtutum custos et decor humilitas copiosa virum Dei ubertate repleverat.” On these quotations and the virtue in Bonaventure and Franciscan thought, see Krijn Pansters, Franciscan Virtue: Spiritual Growth and the Virtues in Franciscan Literature and Instruction of the Thirteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 117. Not all theologians agreed on which virtue was root under all others. As I will discuss later in this chapter, other well-

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

55

Maríu saga also advocates for the primacy of humility and in the commentary on the twelfth step of the Canticum graduum31 the compiler claims that “ok er litillæti sannr grvndvavllr . vndir avllvm mannkostvm” (humility is the true foundation under all the virtues).32 Humility is the foundation of all virtue because “ecki verk metz til mannkostar nema með savnnv litillæti se giort” (no work is considered virtuous unless it is done with true humility).33 The fact that the twelfth step to the temple door which the young Virgin Mary climbs “merkir litillætti” (signifies humility),34 a detail revealing, perhaps, some familiarity with Bernard’s treatise, encourages the compiler to engage in some numerical symbolism: humility, the twelfth step, is foundational to virtuous life just as the “tolf postolar erv grvndvavllr vndir rettri tru” (twelve apostles are the foundation under the true faith).35 On the twelfth step is sung, appropriately, Psalm 130:1 “Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum, neque elati sunt oculi mei, neque ambulavi in magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me” (Lord, my heart is not exalted: nor are my eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in wonderful things above me).36 The compiler of the saga also insists that “engi maa til fagnaðar koma nema hann fari með savnnv litilæti þannvg” (none may come to joy unless he has gone the way of true humility).37 Aware that some in the listening or reading audience might wonder what constitutes “savnnv litilæti” the compiler offers a definition: “satt litillæti er segir hinn helgi Avgvstinvs . at bioða engvm rangt ok þola fyr gvðs sakir” (true humility, says St. Augustine, is to invite nothing unrighteous and to suffer for God’s sake).38 These explanatory asides that attempt to qualify the virtues and describe their importance or symbolic nature are a distinguishing feature of Maríu saga. The other sagas in the manuscripts reveal the saints practicing the virtues, but there is rarely any additional commentary.

known exegetes considered patience to be the foundation of virtuous life. Humility, however, is often a necessarily constituent part of the virtue of patience. 31 This commentary on Mary’s ascent of the temple steps and the Canticum Graduum will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 32 AM 234 fol. 31ra23–31ra25. 33 AM 234 fol. 31ra30–31ra31. 34 AM 234 fol. 30rb32–30rb33. 35 AM 234 fol. 31ra25–31ra26. 36 http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/21130.htm. 37 AM 234 fol. 31ra16–31ra18. 38 AM 234 fol. 31ra19–31ra20. This statement resembles some of the arguments made in Augustine’s De patientia, but I have not identified the exact source the compiler of Maríu saga is referring to here.

56

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

The compiler of Maríu saga is not only invested in the virtues in the abstract, though. The Virgin Mary’s exemplary humility is promoted as a model for the audience. He follows Luke 1:48 in praising Mary’s humble reception of the Annunciation and thus incarnation: “Gladdiz avnd mín J gvði þrigiafvara minvm . þvi at hann leit litillætti ambattar sinnar ok man heðan af mik allar þioðir sælla kalla” (my soul is gladdened in God my savior because he looked on the humility of his handmaiden, and from now on all nations will call me blessed).39 Like Ambrose, the compiler reminds that Mary could have turned to pride after being granted such favor, but, “helldr var hvn þess at litillatari aavallt J allri atferð sinni sem gvð veitti henni meiri dyrð” (she was rather humble always in all her conduct since God granted her greater honor).40 Because Mary’s humility is special, the compiler also offers practical examples. “Iðran synða” (repentance of sins), the audience is reminded, “þarf skylldliga litillætti at menn drambi eigi af yfvir bot sinni” (requires dutiful humility so that they are not proud of their penitence).41 When the three magi reach Bethlehem they “færði hverr þeira drotni þrennar giafvir . gvll ok reykelsi of mírv ok fellv aa kne með miklv ok savnnv litillæti” (bring their lord three gifts, gold and incense and myrrh, and fall on their knees in great and true humility).42 This type of humility, in both emotional and physical presentation, is exemplified throughout the texts in the manuscripts AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. Humility pervades the saga of St. Anthony, a text unique to AM 234 fol. If the audience accepts the injunction that “ver skolvm fylgia fotsporvm heilagra manna . ok framganga þann sama veg sem þeir” (we should follow in the footsteps of the saints and advance on that same path as them), then they must live a life of humility.43 “Litillæti” (humility), among other virtues, is recommended to the “kiærvztv brædr” (dearest brothers) listening to the saga in their spiritual battle against “andskotinn” (the injurer) and “dioflvm” (devils).44 Despite his preeminence among the desert monks, St. Anthony, like the Virgin Mary,

39 AM 234 fol. 33ra44–33rb2. 40 AM 234 fol. 36va1–36va3. 41 AM 234 fol. 31ra10–31ra11. 42 AM 234 fol. 34rb38–34rb40. The compiler’s imagining of the humility of the magi is an amplification of Matthew’s account in chapter 2 verse 11, which says plainly that “Et intrantes domum, invenerunt puerum cum Maria matre ejus, et procidentes adoraverunt eum: et apertis thesauris suis obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus, et myrrham” (And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him; and opening their treasures, they offered him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh). 43 AM 234 fol. 4vb38–4vb40. 44 See the passage running from 5va37–5vb2 in AM 234 fol.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

57

“alldregi af sinv litillæti leitaði hann sialfr sinnar dyrðar” (never admired his own glory due to his humility).45 In the saga of the Apostle Paul, the text preceding Maríu saga in AM 234 fol., humility becomes so fundamental to Paul’s life after his conversion that it is reflected in his new name. This is a point not missed by the compiler of Páls saga postola II, who, relying on Origen, observes that “En origenis segir at saulus þyðiz ofriðar maðr en pavlus litilatr” (Origen says that Saul means unpeaceful and Paul humility).46 In his youth Saul was like a wolf, but the aged Paul is “sva miukr sem lamb . ok sva litillatr” (as meek as a lamb and also humble).47 The creators of AM 234 fol. also incorporate examples of Augustine’s mother, Monica, giving alms and serving the poor humbly in Ágústínus saga (a text also found in AM 235 fol.) and provide a list of the virtues in the prologue to Vitae Patrum that are exhibited by the lives of the Desert Fathers; the audience is encouraged to notice the humility, patience, mildness, and benevolence of the desert monks. In Jóns saga helga, common to both AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., clerical and secular Icelanders witness repeated displays of humility from one of their own, St. Jón Ögmundsson. Jón’s humility is evident in his public reading and his service as bishop.48 His humility was evident before he became bishop of Hólar and is among the reasons for his promotion to the episcopal see there.49 Jón also expected humility from the clerics under his guidance and from parishioners; he required hard penance for “mikilla glæpa” (great sins) and that they turn to a life of humility.50 AM 234 fol. is thus full of a range of examples of humility, from the perhaps unattainable humility of the Virgin Mary, St. Anthony, and the desert monks, to the more relatable performance of the virtue exhibited by St. Paul, St. Jón Ögmundsson, the mother of St. Augustine, and sinners and supplicants of all classes in the miracles of the Virgin Mary. Because the extract of Maríu saga in the AM 235 fol. only addresses the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, it lacks the commentary on humility given in AM 234 fol. There are, however, discussions of the virtues more generally51 as

45 AM 234 fol. 13ra40–13ra41. 46 AM 234 fol. 21va7–21va9. 47 AM 234 fol. 21va11–21va12. 48 See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, S recension, p. 8 and 11. 49 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, S recension, p. 16. 50 Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, S recension, p. 19. 51 At 42ra7–42ra8 the AM 235 fol. copy preserves mention of the “mankosta” which Mary received from her son. AM 235 fol. (at 42rb5–42rb7) also maintains the Marian interpretation of Canticles 6:9 and thus reads the verse “terribilis ut castrorvm acies ordinata” (ogvrliga sem

58

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

well as the special gifts Mary receives at death due to her life of virtue and exemplarity. The rest of the sagas in AM 235 fol. are not lacking in direct illustrations of litillætti, though. John the Baptist’s humility, for example, is an example to the “oeirumenn” (unruly ones) and “ofmetnadar fyllir” (prideful) who seek him out “i eydimorkinna” (in the desert) to hear his wisdom and be baptized.52 The saga of Mary of Egypt reminds the audience that none can receive “guds miskunn” (the mercy of God) except “med litillætti ok rettvisi ok ast” (through humility, righteousness, and love).53 Assuming they were present to hear the life of St. Margaret on July 20, the audience would be admonished, again, near the end of the reading that salvation is only attainable “med idran synda ok litilæti” (though repentance of sins and humility).54 The dual saga of Sts. Martha and Mary Magdalen relates to readers and listeners the necessity of approaching the tomb of the confessor Bishop Maximinus with humility: “ok er sa staðr i sua mikilli virðingh haldinn at engi konungr ok enginn . hofðinghi . eða . valdzmaðr . sa er þangat gengr . at biðia ser miskunnar . er sua stollz eða storr at eigi leggi hann fýrst vapn af ser . at niðr kastaði allri grimmd . ok . gengi siðan með fyllu litillæti . i þat heilata musteri ok allri goðfýsi” (That place is held in such great esteem that no king or chieftain or ruler who goes there to ask for mercy is so proud or great that he does not first put aside his weapons – and in doing so, cast down all fierceness – and then go with full humility and with all goodwill into that exalted temple).55 Here again we see humility in opposition to pride and other forms of illtemperament. The illustrations of humility in the sagas of saints in AM 235 fol. are clearly more imitable than the more interpretative treatment offered in the AM 234 fol. Maríu saga, but all the texts in both manuscripts offer a complete picture of the virtue, from its intellectual and scriptural basis, its role in salvation, to examples of how to incorporate the virtue into daily life. One of the more relatable, and thus imitable, depictions of humility in AM 235 fol. for an audience also consuming Íslendingasögur, fornaldarsögur, and riddarasögur is that of the former Roman soldier turned bishop Martin of Tours. Martin, the saga explains, “þria uetr var hann iriddara syslu . aðr hann var skirðr

skipaða fylkin hermanna) as referring to the “folkvapnn mannkostanna” Mary employed throughout her life. 52 See the passage in AM 235 fol. from 1vb35–2ra25. 53 This section is no longer extant in AM 235 fol. See C.R. Unger, ed. Heilagra manna søgur: fortællinger og legender om hellige mænd og kvinder, 2 vols. (Christiania: B.M. Bentzen, 1877), p. 485. 54 AM 235 fol. 19ra29. 55 AM 235 fol. 27vb17–27vb22. Natalie M. Van Deusen, trans., The Saga of the Sister Saints, p. 187.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

59

ok var hann allra þeira sýnða hreinn sem þeire syslu ero opt vanar at fýlgia . mikil var goðgirnd hans ok ast við laugunauta sina ok þolinmæði hans ok litilæti car umfram manligan hatt . sua sparliga neytti hann fæðu . at hann þotti þa þegar var helldr mvnkr en riddari” (was three winters in service as a knight before he was baptized and cleansed from all of those sins which are expected to follow that role. His goodwill and love towards his companions was great, and his patience and humility surpassed what was customary. He so sparingly required food that he seemed more like a monk than a knight).56 After Martin is consecrated as a bishop, his humility is always steadfast in “hans hiartu” (his heart) and he “varðveitti byskups tígn ok fyrirlet hvergi mvnk(s) litilæti” (preserved the honor of the office of bishop and never neglected monastic humility).57 Before his consecration Martin, unlike Mary and many of the other saints, spent much of his life dedicated to worldly rather than spiritual pursuits. He can, therefore, be an exemplum to all those listening to his saga who are not clerics. They, like Martin, can leave secular life behind and turn to a life of humility and patience. The saga of Martin of Tours also reveals the interdependence the creators of AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. perceive between humility and patience. Martin reflects on both virtues for the rest of his life. He does not practice one without the other. The saga, in fact, suggests that “sua mikla þolinmæði hafði hann við meingerðir at hann hefndi alldri . þott ogaufgir klerkar mællti i mot honum” (he had such abundant patience towards offenses that he sought vengeance never, even though ignoble clerks spoke against him).58 This exemplum of patience in the face of verbal offense would likely have easily registered with audiences so familiar with the cycles of violence depicted in the Íslendingasögur that often began simply through words. While Maríu saga and both of the Skálholt lectionaries seem to elevate litillætti to the role of foundational virtue (which should be of little surprise in a monastic and cathedral school environment that would have promoted humility and then obedience above all else), þolinmæði is not far behind in importance. From at least the early Middle Ages, patience often held an equally fundamental role in monastic virtue. The role of patience in salvation had been established, like humility, by the Gospel of Luke: “In patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras” (In your patience you shall possess your souls).59 Augustine

56 57 58 59

AM 235 fol. 57va25–57va30. AM 235 fol. 58vb15–58vb21. AM 235 fol. 58vb30–58vb32. Luke 21:19. http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/49021.htm.

60

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

of Hippo’s De patientia60 provided a definition of patience that became the standard for later commentators: “Patientia hominis, quae recta est atque laudabilis et vocabulo digna virtutis, ea perhibetur qua aequo animo mala toleramus, ne animo iniquo bona deseramus, per quae ad meliora perveniamus” (The patience of man, which is right and laudable and worthy of the name of virtue, is understood to be that by which we tolerate evil things with an even mind, that we may not with a mind uneven desert good things, through which we may arrive at better).61 The pain Jesus suffered and endured with calmness on the cross was often considered the highest example of patience. Through the example of the Crucifixion, patience became in the High Middle Ages not a passive virtue, but an active one intimately connected to humility, fortitude, perseverance through temptations and hardship, and endurance of suffering with even-temperedness.62 The patience of Job was celebrated in the widely popular Moralia, sive Expositio in Job of Gregory the Great and became a favorite example of the virtue among preachers and other theologians. Thomas Aquinas, in the Secunda secundæ partis (Qaest. CXXXVI, Art. II, 3) of his Summa theologica, considered patience, rather than humility, to be supreme among the virtues: “patientia est radix et custos omnium virtutum. Ergo patientia est maxima virtutum” (patience is the root and protector of all the virtue. Thus patience is the greatest virtue). Patience, like humility, is emphasized in the Maríu saga commentary on the fifteen steps to the temple.

60 PL 40. Translated by H. Browne, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 3., ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). 61 Section 2, PL 40, trans. H. Browne. Augustine also offers the following commentary on Luke 21:19: “Dominus ait: In vestra patientia possidebitis animas vestras, non ait, villas vestras, laudes vestras, luxurias vestras; sed, animas vestras. Si ergo tanta suffert anima ut possideat unde pereat, quanta debet sufferre ne pereat?” (The Lord says, “In your patience you shall possess your souls”: He says not, your farms, your praises, your luxuries; but, your souls. If then the soul endures so great sufferings that it may possess that whereby it may be lost, how great ought it to bear that it may not be lost?). Section 6, PL 40, trans. H. Browne. 62 On the virtue of patience in medieval literature, see the essays in Gerald J. Schiffhorst, ed. The Triumph of Patience: Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Orlando: University Presses of Florida, 1978). On patience as an active virtue, Schiffhorst cites Margaret Williams’s assessment of Pearl: “patience in a medieval context meant more than sitting still and waiting. ‘It was cognate with “passion,” the act of suffering, undergoing, submitting as patient to agent, being passive under action. It involved humility and obedience, an acceptance of the right order of things, especially the right order between creature and creator.’” Shiffhorst “Some Prolegomena for the Study of Patience, 1480–1680,” p. 5. See also Robin Waugh, The Genre of Medieval Patience Literature: Development, Duplication, and Gender (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 2, where she defines the genre of hagiography as a “kind of literature of patience.”

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

61

The “tivndi pallr” (tenth step), according to the compiler of Maríu saga, “merkir þolínmæði” (signifies patience). On that step the faithful sing Psalm 128 sepe exp.63 “ok beðinn gvð at hann styrkti þaa sva at þeir bæri þolínmoðliga sín meinlæti” (and pray of God that he strengthen them so that they are able to endure their suffering patiently).64 The tenth step also “merkir tivlaga boðorð” (signifies the Ten Commandments) and on that step the faithful “baðv þeir þolínmæði” (pray for patience).65 Anticipating, again, a need for explanation among his audience, the compiler of Maríu saga, relying on the authority of Gregory, provides some additional commentary on the virtue of patience: “en þat er algior þolínmæði sem segir hinn sæli Gregorivs at þola meingiorðir með sva mikilli hoglyndi at hann er j engvm mera oþocka við þann er honvm misbavð en við þann er ecki hefvir mot honvm giortt” (that is perfect patience, according to the blessed Gregory, to endure suffering with great gentleness so that one is not more in strife with those who offend him than with those who have not trespassed against him).66 Despite its importance for Christian life, the compiler suggests, patience alone is not sufficient for earning mercy without “mivklæti” and “sannrar iðranar” (meekness and true repentance).67 Though the compiler of Maríu saga is ultimately interested in theologically qualifying and explicating the virtue of patience, he does offer some concrete examples for listeners and readers, even if some of these are unlikely to be replicated by the audience of the saga. The Crucifixion, for instance, is depicted in the saga as revealing the patience and perseverance of both Jesus and his mother: “ok er þat vitnissbvrðr hverssv mikil ravn sællar Marie var . at sia avll meinlæti þav er drottinn bar asinvm pislar degi” (that is a testimony to how severe a test it was for Mary to see all those torments which the lord endured at the Crucifixion).68 Since all of humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, the author of the saga argues, we are granted “styrkð við freistni þolinmæði við motgiorðamenn” (strength against temptation and patience with offenders).69 The saga compiler, ever conscious of human fallibility, reminds his audience that 63 Psalm 128:1–2: “Saepe expugnaverunt me a juventute mea, dicat nunc Israel; saepe expugnaverunt me a juventute mea; etenim non potuerunt mihi” (Often have they fought against me from my youth, let Israel now say; Often have they fought against me from my youth: but they could not prevail over me). 64 AM 234 fol. 30rb25–30rb28. 65 AM 234 fol. 30vb42–30vb43. 66 AM 234 fol. 31ra1–31ra5. The reference to Gregory here is probably to Homeliae in Evangelia II.xxxv.4 (PL 86, cols. 1261–62). 67 AM 234 fol. 31ra6–31ra7. 68 AM 234 fol. 37rb18–37rb20. 69 AM 234 fol. 38va19–38va20.

62

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

if their patience and perseverance should fail them, Mary will be merciful on them when “þeir væri i storum mannravnvm eða fianda freistni” (they might be in heavy trials of endurance or the temptations of demons).70 Patience, fortitude, and perseverance – combined with humility – are the virtues to be practiced by the audience of Maríu saga, but Mary, the compiler reassures, is prepared to supplement failings in virtuous life on behalf of those who pray to her. While specific references to the virtue þolinmæði are less common than to lítillæti in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., encouragement and praise for those who endure and persevere through a tumultuous life abound in both manuscripts. In the Páls saga postola II of AM 234 fol., the Apostle Paul’s life is a “dæma þolinmæðis” (an example of patience) but readers and listeners are not presented with a treatise on the virtue but instead numerous examples of the “fleiri þravtir” (many threats), the “meinlæti” (trouble), the “freistni” (temptation), and the “lifs haska” (dangers to life) that Paul endured “fyr gvðs sakir” (for God’s sake). The lives of the desert monks in Vitae Patrum, like that of St. Anthony, are characterized by suffering in the wilderness. The sagas of John the Baptist, Mary of Egypt, St. Peter, Margaret of Antioch, and Martha and Mary Magdalen in AM 235 fol. all also recount how the saints endured torments, offenses, and temptations with patience. What emerges in both manuscripts is the distinction that patience is to be practiced daily through action while humility is a state of being one is to always strive, and often fail, to achieve. Because patience is construed as an active virtue in the Skálholt lectionaries, even the most unlikely of figures can serve as examples. AM 235 fol. incorporates the sagas of two Scandinavian heroes, St. Ólafr Haraldsson (d. 1030) and St. Magnús Erlendsson of Orkney (d. 1115), who espouse the virtue through either their endurance of hardship for the sake of God (Ólafr Haraldsson) or their even-mindedness in the face of aggression (Magnús Erlendsson). The saga of St. Magnús preserved in the manuscript is the so-called Magnús saga eyjajarls skemmri (The Shorter Saga of Magnus).71 Magnús’s performance of patience in the face of aggression has been characterized as exaggerated,72 but the significance of his example for the audience of AM 235 fol. is clear: patience – calmness of mind in response to evil – is not of the past or only a special attribute reserved for the holiest of Christianity’s saints; it is realizable in the here and now by flawed, if still revered, individuals. Despite his worldly

70 AM 234 fol. 39va19–39va20. 71 On this version, see Maria-Claudia Tomany, “Sacred Non-Violence, Cowardice Profaned: St. Magnus of Orkney in Nordic Hagiography and Historiography,” in Sanctity in the North, pp. 128–53. 72 Think, for example, of Magnús’s preference for the psalter as a weapon during battle.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

63

position and his generosity to his retainers, Magnús “uar meinlætasamr uið sjalfan sik” (was an ascetic with himself),73 revealing his own imitation of the life of Anthony and other desert saints. In his final battle, it is reported that “Magnus iarl uæri þa með mikilli hugar staðfesti . þa er hans motstoðu menn mælta slikt sem nu uar sagt . at hann . mælti . huarki með stygð ne reiði// Eptir þat fell hann til bænar ok laut i gaupnir ser ok helti ut morgum tarvm i guðs augliti” (Earl Magnus had then much steadfastness of spirit when his offenders spoke against him those words which have just been related. He responded to those words with neither derision nor anger. After this, he fell to prayer and looked into his hands and let out many tears before the face of God).74 Magnús’s final act before death in battle is thus patient endurance of offense and humility before God. His social position and numerous sins requiring penance make Magnús a relatable example; his modeling of patience is therefore also more attainable for the audience(s) of AM 235 fol. Ólafr Haraldsson is depicted similarly in the composite saga recorded in AM 235 fol.,75 though it is not necessarily his conscious performance of patience but his perseverance through a tumultuous tenure as king that is offered as an example. Ólafr’s career as king is plagued with “storum aahyggium” (great anxiety)76 over his royal action; this anxiety is perhaps related to the oppressive anxiety endured by Mary of Egypt, Margaret of Antioch, St. Anthony, and many of the other saints whose sagas are recorded in AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol. In fact, according to the saga olafs kongs harallz sonar in AM 235 fol., “slikar ahyggiur bar hann optliga ok skaut til guds allo sinu male ok bad hann þat lata upp koma sem hann vissi honum best gegna” (he endured such anxiety often and transferred all his decisions over to God and prayed that he let them be resolved in the way he knew to be best).77 Ólafr, then, clearly absorbed the basic teachings on patience; he has submitted himself to the will of God and prepared himself to endure whatever may come. Nowhere in either of the Skálholt lectionaries is the virtue of patience more extensively modeled than in the saga of St. Anthony. The examples of patience

73 AM 235 fol. 8ra6–8ra7. 74 AM 235 fol. 8vb6–8vb10. 75 The “saga olafs kongs harallz sonar” in AM 235 fol. is a short composite based on material from the text In die sancti Olaui regis et martiris in AM 619 4to, the Óláfs saga helga en elsta (the older saga), a collection of miracles, and the Óláfs saga helga (Helgisaga) in DG 8 fol. (ca. 1224–1250). On the sources of this saga, see Wolf, The Legends of the Saints, pp. 284–99. 76 The saga also says that Ólafr is often “miok hugsiukr um radagerdir” (very anxious concerning his plans). 77 AM 235 fol. 31ra1–31ra3.

64

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

and perseverance against temptation recounted in the desert saint’s saga are far too numerous to be treated here fully and could be the subject of their own study. St. Anthony’s life in the desert is punctuated by “freistni” (temptation), “meinlæti” (pain or affliction), and “mannraun” (trials of fortitude); Anthony “bera þolinmoðliga” (bears patiently) every temptation, test of his fortitude, and affliction for God’s sake because he remembers well, the saga audience is told, the examples of the Apostle Paul and Job. Anthony, in fact, “tyndi alldri sinni þolinmæði” (never lost his patience) despite the lifetime of suffering he endured.78 As the life of St. Anthony reveals, patience towards offenders and perseverance through temptation is not easy. The desert saint does not shrink away from the worst torments and always keeps the most extreme example of patience on his mind. When Anthony disputes with the Greek philosophers who have come to mock his customs, he asks them: “Hyggit at hvart eigi er micklv betra . at taka með þolinmæði krossins kuavl eða nockvt annat kyn davðans . þat er ueitiz af vandvm mavnnvm . helldr en sva at eyða et fallvallta lif” (Consider whether or not it is better to patiently endure the torments of the cross or any kind of death which is given by the wicked, or to wastefully extoll unsteady life).79 The patience exhibited on the cross, Anthony emphasizes, is more worthy of contemplation than the so-called wisdom common among philosophers who tell stories of “Tiphonis,” “Satvrni,” and “Jovis.” Though the same scriptoria copying and consuming sagas of saints were also copying and using Íslendingasögur, Anthony’s comment here would likely serve as a warning (or at least a recommendation) to the readers and listeners of AM 234 fol. to reflect on the patience of Jesus rather than (or in addition to) the deeds of their favorite saga heroes. It is clear that the monastic institution at Skálholt intended the examples of humility and patience, among other virtues, and the explanatory commentary on the importance of lítillæti and þolinmæði in these two manuscripts to be of some practical utility to Icelanders who came across the manuscripts as readers, listeners, or students. How these messages were received by the audience (s) of the manuscripts is of course more difficult to determine. While it is humility that is foremost on the clerical minds that produced AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., it is the virtue of patience that is more likely to have resonated with a fourteenth-century Icelandic audience for which the political turmoil of the late thirteenth century was still a recent memory, economic instability was ever-

78 AM 234 fol. 13ra39. 79 AM 234 fol. 14vb20–14vb24.

Chapter 2 Mary, Lítillæti (Humility), and Þolinmæði (Patience)

65

present, and environmental catastrophe loomed at every moment. The noun “þolinmæði” and adverb “þolinmoðliga” are not that common in other saga genres outside hagiography, but the related verb “þola” (to endure or suffer) is a regular feature of the Íslendingasögur and other genres of medieval Icelandic literature. Thus the promise found in the Skálholt lectionaries that patient endurance through a life of hardship would increase the rewards in the next life would have been a powerful and appealing message to both the reading and listening audiences of both manuscripts. It would be reasonable to turn to any one of the saints’ sagas in either AM 234 fol. or AM 235 fol. and examine the ways in which that particular saga exemplifies the virtues. The Maríu saga compiler’s depiction of the Virgin Mary’s humility in response to being graced with the son of God, when pride would have been an understandable human response, might form the basis of a reading of humility in her saga more generally. Readers of Antóníus saga might focus on his humility, his patience, his obedience, or indeed his eagerness to endure in the “eyðimörk” (wasteland) that is the Egyptian desert. The “eyðimörk” of Anthony could of course also be compared to that endured by the protagonists of the riddarasögur, Íslendingasögur, and other genres.80 Such studies would be important and welcomed contributions to the still underwhelming body of scholarship on Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography. They would also, however, neglect the fact that each of these sagas exists in dialogue with the other texts committed to parchment in the same manuscripts. When we consult multiple editions for texts collected in the same manuscripts or isolate individual sagas for examination we lose the textual interplay across the manuscripts, the ways in which the virtues are reinforced in a variety of sagas of saints, as well as the reading experience(s) of the creators, owners, and users of those manuscripts.

80 See Siân E. Grønlie’s study of this in The Saint and the Saga Hero, chapter 4, “The Outlaw, the Exile and the Desert Saint.”

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”: Explicatory and Compilatory Techniques in the Manuscripts of Maríu saga Near the end of a protracted1 and wide-ranging introductory treatise to his Miracula sanctae Mariae virginis William of Malmesbury expresses anxiety concerning how Marian piety should be presented to lay audiences and undereducated clerics and offers an explanation for the collection of miracle tales that follow: This, more or less, is what comes to mind of what our forebears said in praise of the blessed Mary. They poured it out in fuller words and sentences; I have made a digest. But if the saints will allow me to say it, much is still lacking from this important task. By chance or on purpose, they altogether suppressed what I think is an apter means of kindling love for this Lady in the souls of the simple: I mean examples of her pity, and miracles, which are displayed to the world in no insignificant quantity. Reasonings may awaken the faith of the perfected, but it is the narration of miracles that awakens the hope and charity of the simple, just as a sluggish fire revives when oil is thrown on it. Reasonings teach that she can pity the pitiable, but it is examples of miracles that teach that she wishes to do what she is able to do.2

1 See Kati Ihnat, Mother of Mercy, p. 106: “The length of William’s prologue suggests that the text was conceived less as a mere introduction to the miracles than as a complete treatise in its own right. But for William, the two parts were intimately connected.” 2 “Haec sunt fere quae de laudibus beatae Mariae a maioribus dicta potuerunt occurrere. Quaeque illi amplioribus et uerbis et sententiis effuderunt, nos contractiori stilo digessimus. Verumtamen, si pace sanctorum liceat dicere, multum adhuc preclarissimae deest operae. Illa enim omnino tacuerunt, casu fortassis aliquo, uel librato iudicio, quae magis conducibilia puto simplicium animabus, ad accendendum amorem dominae huius. Exempla dico pietatis eius, et miracula, quorum nec exilis, nec friuola exhibetur mundo copia. Nam ratiocinationes quidem perfectorum fidem excitant; sed simplicium spem et caritatem accendit miraculorum narratio, ut torpens ignis iniecto roboratur oliuo. Ratiocinationes docent eam miseris misereri posse; exempla uero miraculorum docent uelle quod posse.” J.M. Canal, “El libro de laudibus et miraculis sanctae Mariae de Guillermo de Malmesbury,” Claretianum 8 (1968): 127. Translated by R.M. Thomson and Michael Winterbottom in William of Malmesbury, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary: An English Translation, ed. and trans. R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2015), pp. 13–14. R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom also edited William of Malmesbury’s collection of tales with a facing page translation in William of Malmesbury, The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Medieval Texts, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-004

68

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

Kati Ihnat has observed that William of Malmesbury’s prefatory treatise illuminates “the bipartite structure of his text: the miracles in part 2 were meant to do for the simpleminded what the theological treatise in part 1 aimed to do for those versed in theology. William’s purpose was specifically to strengthen faith in Mary’s mercy not just among clerics through theological reflection but also among the laity through hearing the miracles she has performed.”3 William’s collection of miracles and other compilations transmitting legends of Mary’s miraculous intercession were regularly incorporated into the liturgy. The miracles in these collections, Ihnat argues, “come across as apologiae for novel liturgical practice, defending and supporting Mary’s celebration in the liturgy in a period that saw her dramatic rise to prominence.”4 The manuscript tradition of Maríu saga, as I have already noted, implies a connection between the saga and the miracle collections appended at the end of the narrative of the Virgin’s life. The Marian miracles in these manuscripts, as their Latin counterparts, are often constructed around the liturgy. They contain prayers and antiphons, either in Latin, in translation, or both. One of the characteristics of Maríu saga – as Heizmann, Fairise, Tomassini, and others have repeatedly noted – is its protracted explanations of liturgical rites, church doctrine, and other complicated matters. Throughout the narrative, the saga offers explanations of the necessity, power, and symbolism of particular liturgical celebrations. Those elements are often repeated throughout the miracles that follow the saga in the manuscripts and thus show the efficacy of keeping the canonical hours and reciting prayers to the Virgin Mary. We might say, then, that Maríu saga provides “reasonings/ratiocinationes” and the appended miracles the narrative examples. The compiler of Maríu saga, like William of Malmesbury, seems to have been concerned about how his audience would interpret the more doctrinally complicated passages in the saga. This apprehension is apparent also in the priest Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s (d. 1298) Jóns saga baptista II, which is copied alongside Maríu saga in AM 232 fol. and AM 233 a fol., and other sagas of saints produced and then copied in manuscripts in the latter half of the thirteenth century and throughout the fourteenth. Both the author of Maríu saga and Grímr, like other Icelandic hagiographers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, tend to overcome their apprehensions by relying on “glosur” (glosses) 3 Ihnat, Mother of Mercy, p. 106. 4 Ihnat, “Marian Miracles and Marian Liturgies in the Benedictine Tradition of Post-Conquest England,” in Contextualising Miracles in the Christian West, 1100–1500: New Historical Approaches, ed. Matthew Mesley and Louise Wilson (Oxford: Medium Aevum Monographs, 2015), p. 70.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

69

supplied by the early fathers of the church, such as Augustine and Jerome, and more contemporary commentators like Peter Comestor, Vincent of Beauvais, and Honorius Augustodunensis. When, for example, the compiler of Maríu saga interrupts his account of the death of the Virgin Mary and the fate of her soul and body to explain why Canticles 6:9 (“Que est ista, que ascendit sicut aurora consurgens, pulchra vt luna, electa vt sol, terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata”) is read during the Feast of the Assumption, he acknowledges that he is doing so because “þat var hattr spa mana at þeir mælltu myrkt . ok rœddv til ymissa hluta” (it was customary for prophets to speak obscurely and discuss various distinctions)5 and because some scriptural passages have more than one meaning (“hefir fleiri natturur en eina”).6 This digressive interpretative passage is necessary, the author of the saga continues, “en til þess at sea spa saga megi lios verða” (so that this mystery may be illuminated)7 for his reading and listening audience. To clarify Canticles 6:9 and other mysterious scriptural passages, the compiler of Maríu saga regularly depends upon the “skýringar heilagra feðra” (the interpretations of the holy fathers).8 Once a reader acknowledges the difficulties associated with interpretation and follows the guidelines established by authorities, such as Augustine,9 the 5 Stock. Perg 4to no. 11 24vb30–25ra1. Because it is the longest of the three redactions and contains expanded explanatory passages, most citations in this chapter will be to the St redaction. The passage, though, is also preserved at 39ra21–39ra23 in AM 234 fol. (A) and at 15vb29–15vb30 in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (E). 6 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 25ra13–15ra15. See also in A 39ra30–39ra31 and in E 16ra4–16ra5. 7 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 24vb24–24vb26. See also 39ra18–39ra19 in A and 15vb27–15vb29 in E. 8 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 25ra27–25ra28. See also 39ra38–39ra39 in A. 9 The third book of Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana remained a key manual for confronting scriptural ambiguity. Its influence is clearly visible in writers contemporary to the compiler of Maríu saga and the reference work was available, as I point out later in this chapter, in an Icelandic monastery library. See Ian Christopher Levy, Introducing Medieval Biblical Interpretation: The Senses of Scripture in Premodern Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), pp. 19–26. Levy relates that “Augustine counsels that when the literal reading generates ambiguous meanings, one should have recourse to the rule of faith (regula fidei) as it is found not only in the clearer passages (plenioribus locis) of Scripture but also as established by the authority of the church” (p. 23). See also Duncan Robertson, Lectio Divina: The Medieval Experience of Reading (Trappist, KY: Cistercian Publications, 2011), pp. 52 and 54: “Augustine concedes at the outset that certain people can bypass texts entirely and receive direct illumination from God. But for most people, the path of spiritual development leads through reading, and they will need human teaching to guide their interpretation”; “Rarely will we find ambiguities on the literal level of meaning, Augustine maintains, which cannot be resolved ‘either by examining the context which reveals the author’s intention, or by comparing translations, or by consulting a text in an earlier language.’”

70

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

meaning of Canticles 6:9 and its relation to the Feast of the Assumption is easily discoverable. The compiler begins his explication by translating the verse: “Þessi orð þyþaz sva . Hver er þessi sva myklu dyrðligri en aðrar . er upp stigr sva sem risande dags brun . føgr sem tungl . valit sem sol . Ogurlig sem skiput fylking her mana” (These words are translated in this way: Who is this who is so much more glorious than others, who goes up just as the rising daybreak, fair as the moon, more elect than the sun, terrible as the arrayed army).10 Why is the Virgin Mary’s Assumption compared to daybreak, the compiler asks (En fyrir hveria savk er dagsbrvn jafnat til vppnumningar?).11 Scriptural commentaries can help us interpret this image (Þa skyra sva ritningar).12 Daybreak refers to that time of day when the heavens have both light and darkness because the night has not yet ended and the morning has not yet fully come. Mary, the audience is reminded, was cleansed from original sin. Through her own free will Mary accepted the incarnation. Because of her acceptance of the child of God “þa hafði dagrin sigrat nottína” (the day had then conquered the night).13 This is why Mary is compared to “dags brun.” The reason for Mary’s comparison to the moon is rather simple, the compiler reveals. The moon bears the “likneski” (the image) of the sun, just as Mary was created in the image of God. Mary is more elect than the sun because she sits next to her son in heaven above the angels. Like the sun, Mary’s love and power of intercession heat the coldest of hearts, just as the sun softens all that is hard, such as snow and glaciers. Finally, Mary is likened to the army set in array, the compiler explains, because she “hafði øll folk vapn man kostana” (is armed with all the virtues) and “varð hvergi særð . af talar skeytvm fiandligrar vælar” (will never be wounded by the deceits of cunning fiends).14 Mary is prepared, with Jesus’s “riddarar” (champions) to wage war against all of God’s enemies, just as an army set in array. Because of his anxiety surrounding interpretation, the compiler of Maríu saga interrupts the narrative of the Virgin Mary’s life to illuminate a number of obscurities for his audience so that they are able to more clearly understand the mysteries of scripture and liturgical practice. He comments on the conception of the Virgin Mary (and the feast associated with that event), the interpretation of the letters in her name, and the symbolism of the fifteen steps to the temple and the Gradual Psalm sung on each step. He also offers explanations for

10 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 24vb19–24vb24. 11 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 25rb4–25rb6. 12 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 25rb10. 13 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 25va15–25va16. 14 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 26rb23–26rb29.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

71

Gabriel’s greeting to Mary (Ave Maria), the Magnificat,15 the reasons for the flight into Egypt, the wounds of Jesus, the ambiguity surrounding the death and Assumption of Mary, the process, location, and particulars of the Last Judgment, and, finally, on whether there is a distinction – in relation to the creation of humankind – between image (líkneskja) and likeness (líking). These explicatory passages are extant, though with some variation, in each of the complete manuscript copies of the saga and the compiler’s techniques of explanation and his reliance on a variety of source material anticipate stylistic developments in hagiography of the late thirteenth century and subsequent centuries.16 The compiler’s exegetical digressions throughout the saga vary in length and complexity, but all aim to either clarify the meaning of scripture, to recommend the exegesis of well-known commentators, or to rationalize liturgical rites.17 His commentary on the conception of the Virgin Mary, for example, attempts to explain the controversy surrounding the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. On Mary’s conception, the compiler admits that while it is true “var þat barn getit með hini gømlu synd sem hvert anat” (that child was conceived through the old sin as all others)18 it is also true that “af gipt ens helga anda . var Maria hreinsut af enni gømlu synd . J moþur kvidi . fyr enn hon vøri fødd” (by the gift of the holy spirit Mary was cleansed from that old sin in her mother’s womb before she was born).19 According to the compiler of the saga, because many do not know when Mary was cleansed in the womb the Feast of the Immaculate Conception remains contentious.20

15 On the saga’s exploration of the Immaculate Conception and the Magnificat, see Laura Tomassini “Attempts at Biblical Exegesis in Old Norse: Some Examples from Maríu saga.” See also Wilhelm Heizmann, “Zur typologischen Interpretation des Magnificat in Maríu saga,” in The Sixth International Saga Conference, Helsingør 28.7–2.8 1985. Workshop Papers, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Det arnamagnæanske Institut, 1985), vol. 1, pp. 469–82. 16 The compiler’s treatment of the death and Assumption of Mary is the subject of the fourth chapter in this book while his summary of the doctrine concerning the Last Judgment and the resurrection of the dead is examined in the final chapter. 17 Though the exegetical passages are represented in each of the complete copies – and some of the fragments and excerpts – there is also variation in the length of the digressions in the multiple manuscript versions. 18 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 3va28–3va30. This passage is also extant in the other two main redactions of the saga. See AM 234 fol. 29vb34–29vb35 and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 4vb26. 19 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 3vb3–3vb6. See also AM 234 fol. 29vb39–29vb42 and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 4vb30–5ra2. 20 See also Tomassini’s argument in “Attempts at Biblical Exegesis in Old Norse,” pp. 131–32.

72

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

In another brief section Gabriel’s greeting to Mary, Ave Maria, is treated by the compiler not only to translate the mandated refrain for an audience untrained in Latin but also, perhaps more significantly, because the “stafir” (letters) in “Ave” are the reversed “stafir” in the name Eva. The compiler continues: “Oc sva sem Eva leiddi . bölvon yfir allt mankyn . johlyþni sinni . jboþorða broti . sva leiddi Maria allan lyð til blezunar” (And just as Eve brought a curse over all humankind through her disobedience, so Mary brought blessedness to all).21 Mary’s acceptance of the incarnation, the compiler observes, will lead to the reversal of the mortal wages of sin and thus Gabriel’s greeting portends this significant soteriological event. Each of the digressions in the saga, as this example reiterates, appeal to varied audiences; the educated are supplied with the “reasonings” which can be used to guide the unlearned and communal audiences are supplied with the necessary translations of liturgical verses that allow them to understand what they are reciting and celebrating. One of the most extensive commentaries included in Maríu saga concerns three-year-old Mary’s ascent up the fifteen steps to the temple doors, the symbolic significance of those fifteen steps, and which of the Gradual Psalms was sung on each step and why.22 Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen published a summary of this section of Maríu saga in 1961 and requested assistance in identifying the sources available to the compiler.23 The Psalms, and particular groupings such as the Penitential and Gradual Psalms, were central to devotion in the monastery and in secular liturgical practice.24 This is a point stressed by

21 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 9rb30–9va2. See also AM 234 fol. 32va14–32va17 and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 7vb21–7vb23. 22 The Gradual Psalms, or Canticum graduum, are numbered 119–33 in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Mary’s ascent to the temple doors is celebrated on the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (November 21). The story of Mary’s unaided climb of the fifteen steps was popularized by the Protoevangelium of James. Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen first called attention to the uniqueness of this passage in Maríu saga in their article “The Fifteen Steps to the Temple: A Problem in the Maríu saga,” Opuscula 2.1, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25.1 (Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1961): 80–91. 23 “The Fifteen Steps to the Temple: A Problem in the Maríu saga.” While the saga seems to have relied in part on Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos the commentary could also be based on unknown other works or be the innovation of the compiler. An exegetical treatise on the Gradual Psalms is also found in the well-known Middle English N-Town Play. On this play and the role of the Gradual Psalms in its devotional program, see Frank M. Napolitano, “The N-Town Presentation of Mary in the Temple and the Production of Rhetorical Knowledge,” Studies in Philology 110.1 (Winter 2013): 1–17 and Penny Granger, The N-Town Play: Drama and Liturgy in Medieval East Anglia (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2009), pp. 127–29. 24 For a summary account on the importance of the Psalter for medieval Christian devotion, see Theresa Gross-Diaz, “The Latin Psalter,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2,

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

73

the author of Maríu saga in the introduction to his commentary on the Canticum graduum: Mvsterit merkir himinriki ok ellifa sølu með almatkvm Gvðj . En .xv. pallar voro vpp at ganga musteris durana . Ok matti eigi anan veg koma j musterit . en of pallana at ganga . ok skylldi eigi skiotara . en syng(ia) sálm a hverivm palli . ok ero þeir salmar siðan kallaðir Canticum graduum . þat þyðizt palla lofsøngvar. (The temple signifies heaven and eternal happiness with almighty God. There are fifteen steps up to the temple doors. No one can find their way into the temple except through going up the steps. But one should not ascend the steps quickly, rather they should sing the psalms on each step. Those psalms are called the Canticum graduum, which translates to the psalms of ascent.)25

Having highlighted the devotional significance of the fifteen steps, the compiler then shifts to a prolonged commentary on each step, the psalm recited on that step, and how the steps figure into Christian doctrine.26 The first step to the temple symbolizes (merkir) the forsaking of the world. On this step the devout should sing Psalm 119 (Ad dominum cum tribularer . . . ) and pray that God give them the ability to “hafna þessvm heimi” (forsake this world) and look forward instead to “himneska dyrð” (the glory of heaven). Divine protection is signified by the second step and on it the faithful sing Psalm 120 (Leuaui oculos meos) and entreat God to shield them from “rangri fysi” (sinful desires). On the third step the devout contemplate heavenly joy and sing Psalm 121 (Letatus sum); the very act of singing this psalm on this step, the compiler reminds his audience, is done in hope of earning that joy. The faithful can

The Bible from 600 to 1450, ed. Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 427–45. On the Gradual Psalms, Gross-Diaz suggests that “they were so called from their title, canticum graduum, which probably originally referred to the ‘going up’ of Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. Their introduction as an act of private devotion before daily matins is attributed to Benedict of Aniane (d. 821), though it may have been the penitential psalms he used, and the custom was later taken up at Cluny. Since both groups of psalms were used in relation to prayers for the dead, confusion is understandable,” p. 438. 25 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 4ra23–4rb1. See also AM 234 fol. 30ra30–30ra36 and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 5ra1–5ra6. I should note here, as I did in chapter 1, that Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 is the only manuscript to begin a new chapter, with appropriate heading, for this opening section of the commentary on the Gradual Psalms. 26 This commentary is to be found in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 4ra22–6vb15, in AM 234 fol. 30ra30–31rb31, and in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 5ra1–6va2. Quotations that follow are taken from Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 unless otherwise indicated. Though I have consulted other commentaries on the Gradual Psalms, I have not identified an exact source for the exposition given in Maríu saga. This makes it difficult to determine how much of the explanatory glosses are the author’s own innovations or are based his sources.

74

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

then advance up to the fourth step towards divine confidence, where they sing Ad te leuaui (Psalm 122). On the fifth step Christians are reminded to be grateful and sing Nisi quia dominus (Psalm 123) and thank God because the “Gyðingar voro leystir or Babiloni” (Jews were saved from Babylon). On the sixth step the ascenders are called to moderation; here they recite Qvi confidunt in domino (Psalm 124) and pray that God protect them against temptation. The seventh step symbolizes divine consolation; on this step is sung Psalm 125 (Jn conuertendo dominus). On the eighth step Psalm 126 (Nisi dominus edificaverit) is recited to celebrate the restoration of Jerusalem. On the ninth step ascenders contemplate “hræðzlu drottins” (the fear of God) as they chant Beati omnes (Psalm 127). On the final steps the faithful perfect the virtues of patience (tenth step, Psalm 128, Sepe expugnauerunt), meekness (eleventh step, Psalm 129, De profundis), humility (twelfth step, Psalm 130), and charity (fifteenth step, Psalm 133, Ecce nunc benedicite); they also commemorate the rebuilding of the temple (thirteenth step, Psalm 131, Memento domine David) and commit themselves to unanimity (fourteenth step, Psalm 132, Ecce quam bonum). The compiler’s exegetical commentary on the Gradual Psalms provides monastics and laity with an interpretation of liturgical practice, but he continues his treatise by further dividing and explaining the steps. The first six steps correspond to the six ages of the world (sex aetates mundi), a concept which descended from the works of Augustine and is so frequently mentioned in medieval Christian historiography. In the first four ages the compiler identifies patriarchs who model the behavior he just recommended for the devout who are “ascending” the steps. The seventh and eighth steps anticipate the ages to come, while steps nine to fifteen correspond to some particulars of Christian doctrine. In the first age Enoch forsook his wife and children “fyrir .Guðs. sakir” (for the sake of God) and was therefore given passage “j paradisvm.” In the second age Noah receives the divine protection connected to the second step. Abraham “stoð a fágnadar palli” (stood on the step of joy). Moses “stoð a þeim sama . palli.” (stood on the same step). Both were brought “til himnesks fagnaðar” (to the joy of heaven). King David and Manasseh of Judah (after his repentance) stood on the fourth step and received divine support. The fifth age marks the arrival of Jesus. On the fifth step gratitude is expressed to God for granting his son the power to free the righteous “með .v. sárum” (through the five wounds) from the torments of hell (“helvitis pislvm”). In the sixth age and on the sixth step the faithful learn the works of mercy – to provide shelter, food and drink, and clothing for the “þurftuga” (the needy) and comfort to “sivkra manna” (the sick) – only through these works can they truly live in moderation.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

75

The seventh and eighth steps look forward to future ages, to the “efsta doms” (Last Judgment) and the “anars heims” (next world). The seventh age (and step) is connected to divine consolation because just as God comforted the Jews in their exile, so will he release the righteous “or ánavð ok vesold . þessar veralldar” (from the bondage and misery of this world). The compiler has already informed his audience that the restoration of Jerusalem is commemorated on the eighth step; in this second section of his commentary he explains the reasons for this. The eighth step symbolizes the eighth age and thus the “anars heims eilifa sælo” (eternal happiness of the next world). As God deserved gratitude for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, so he deserves even more for the establishment of heaven. The ninth step – and fear of God – follows the eighth age of eternal joy because none will achieve that bliss and find company among the angels or avoid the torments of hell (“heluítis kvalar”) except through fearing God. Without adequate fear there can only be “elldr eilifr . ok frost enda laust . myrkr oþrotnanda” (eternal fire and endless frost, unwavering darkness). Attainment of heavenly bliss also requires patient endurance and the keeping of the Ten Commandments – both of which are signified on the tenth step. As I pointed out in chapter 2, the compiler here borrows from Gregory the Great to define patience. The eleventh and twelfth steps – symbolizing meekness and humility – follow the tenth. In a nod towards Bernard of Clairvaux’s De gradibus the compiler identifies the twelfth step and the virtue of humility as the “saðr grund vøllr vndir øllvm man kostum” (true foundation under all the virtues). Clothed in humility, the soul has progressed through a process of “leið retting” (mending) just as God’s temple had undergone. The unanimity signified by the fourteenth step recommends the faithful to dwell in peace together with the Ten Commandments and the four Gospels. Because “øfund ok ofmetnaðr” (envy and pride) are forbidden in heaven, the faithful should pursue charity on the final step before they can enter the temple (and paradise). Widding and Bekker-Nielsen pointed out in their 1961 article that “the exposition ends with a fine piece of numerical subtlety: that charity (the 15th step), the greatest of the theological virtues, includes all other virtues of the Decalogue and the gospels thus representing the number 15 (10+4+1). Charity is also said to be derived from the 7 gifts of the Holy Ghost, and to lead Man to the 8 beatitudes, so that once more we arrive at the number 15 (7+8).”27 Though it is a prolonged interruption of a narrative about Mary’s birth and then dedication to the temple, the compiler’s commentary on the Gradual Psalms is

27 “The Fifteen Steps to the Temple: A Problem in the Maríu saga,” pp. 87–88.

76

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

doctrinally important to the saga’s didactic aims and interest in explaining, perhaps due to anxiety, as much about the faith and its practice as is possible in a biography about the Virgin Mary. While this commentary is more extensive than others, it is not unique in the saga and represents the compiler’s explicatory techniques for making the reasonings of the clergy accessible to the unlearned – both within the monastery’s walls and outside of them. He uses this approach in interpreting the liturgy for the Feast of the Assumption and in a number of other digressive exegetical passages. Grímr Hólmsteinnsson expresses similar anxieties and employs a comparable explicatory style to the compiler of Maríu saga in the preface attached to his late thirteenth-century Jóns saga baptista II.28 An earlier saga of John the Baptist was already available to Icelandic audiences (this earlier Jóns saga baptista is the one preferred in AM 235 fol., for example). Grímr’s preface, then, seeks to provide some context for his new compilation. According to Grímr, his patron Runólfr Sigmundsson (d. 1307), abbot of the Augustinian house at Þykkvibær (est. 1168 by St. Þorlákr Þorhallsson) requested that he “saman lesa or likama heilagra guðspialla . lif hins sæla Iohannis baptiste . ok setia þar yfir til heyriligar glosur . lesnar af undir díupi omeliarum . hins mikla Gregorij . Augustini . Ambrosij ok Ieroními . ok annarra kenni feðra” (compile from the body of the Gospels the life of John the Baptist and supplement it with appropriate glosses collected from the depth of the homilies of Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and other church fathers).29 Grímr then offers additional reasons for the inclusion of glosses and exegetical passages that are reminiscent of the comments offered by the compiler of the slightly earlier Maríu saga: truir ek at nockurum monnum syniz i mörgum stödum mörg orð yfir sett . þar sem fa standa fyrir . Gorða ek þvi sva . at þat var yðvart atkvæði at ek birta orð hans með glosum . I annan stad truða ek . ef obockfroðir monnum heyrði hans hin fögru blom . ok hinar myrku figurur at þeim mundu þær a þa leið onytsamar . sem gimsteinar ero siunum . ok at betra væri . at lysa hans spaasogur . ok skynsemdir mörgum manni til trubotar . helldr enn at sinna heimskra mann þocka . þeira sem allt þickir þat langt . er fra Cristz köppum er sagt . ok skemtaz framarr með skröksögur. (I believe that some men will see in many places more words in this saga when there are fewer in the original. I compiled the saga in this way because it was your request that I illuminate his words with glosses. Secondly, I worked in this way because I believed that if unlearned men heard these beautiful blooms and the obscure figures that they would be as useless to their direction as jewels are to swine. I thought it would be better to

28 Of the two manuscripts that also contain Maríu saga, the preface is extant in AM 233 a fol. but is not preserved in AM 232 fol. 29 AM 233 a fol. 1va4–1va7.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

77

illuminate his prophecies and reasonings in order to improve the faith of many rather than to heed the thoughts of the foolish, those who find what is said of Christ’s champions wearisome but are entertained by fables.)30

Grímr here echoes both the compiler of Maríu saga and William of Malmesbury. Grímr and the author of Maríu saga both admit to concerns over how their audiences will interpret the more obscure passages of the Bible and the “reasonings” of the church fathers and other exegetes and set for themselves the task of illuminating (recall the phrases “en til þess at sea spa saga megi lios verða” in Maríu saga and “myrku figurur” and “at lysa hans spaasogur” in Jóns saga baptista II) the mysteries of biblical and authoritative texts. Astrid Marner’s scholarship has shown that Grímr illuminates obscurities by relying on the authority of thirty-seven texts by twenty-three different authors.31 According to Marner, “among author references, Bede leads the count with 22%, followed by Augustine with 16, Jerome with 15, Gregory the Great with 14 and Peter Comestor with 13%.”32 Other named sources are a mixture of contemporaries and early church fathers and include Josephus, Johannes Chrysostomos, Eusebius, Pope Leo the Great, Bernard of Clairvaux, Vincent of Beauvais, and Honorius Augustodunensis.33 The number of citations and the content they add to the life of John the Baptist has led Simonetta Battista to the conclusion that Grímr’s work is a “kind of encyclopaedic reference work” about the saint for the use of preachers unable to consult the Latin source texts on their own.34 Grímr identifies a number of subjects that could be troublesome for Latin deficient clerics and the laity in need of instruction. He interrupts the narrative of his saga to comment on the reasons John the Baptist’s birthday is celebrated, like the Virgin Mary, rather than his death day, the rationale behind the feast of the Decollatio Iohannis baptistae, the ten names of John (sourced from the 30 AM 233 a fol. 1va16–1va24. This passage is also translated in Margaret Cormack’s chapter “Christian Biography” in A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture, p. 33. I have consulted her translation but made changes in a few key places. 31 “Translations of Authorities in Old Norse Hagiography: The Example of Jóns saga baptista,” p. 2. 32 “Translations of Authorities in Old Norse Hagiography,” p. 2. Marner also observes that “the whole corpus of Old Norse hagiography comprises about 280 references, and 62% of these are located in Jóns saga Baptista II.” 33 See Simonetta Battista, “The Ten Names of John: A Theological Passage in Jóns saga baptista,” in Studi anglo-norreni in onore di John S. McKinnell: ‘He hafað sundorgecynd,’ ed. Maria Elena Ruggerini (Cagliari: CUEC, 2009), p. 358; and David McDougall, “‘Pseudo-Augustinian’ Passages in ‘Jóns saga baptista 2’ and the ‘Fourth Grammatical Treatise,’” Traditio 44 (1988): 463–64. 34 “The Ten Names of John: A Theological Passage in Jóns saga baptista,” p. 363.

78

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

Speculum ecclesiae of Honorius Agustodunensis), the sixteen reasons the saint is praiseworthy (based on the Summa virtutum),35 why John is the “fyrirrennere” (forerunner) of Jesus, the purification of John through the “helgum anda” (holy spirit) in his mother’s womb and thus why a feast exists – even if controversially – for the Nativity of John, among other complicated matters. Grímr also translates Latin liturgical lines into Icelandic, like the compiler of Maríu saga, throughout his life of John the Baptist and supplies those lines with theological interpretation. Grímr’s saga is also saturated with formulas indicating interpretation: “skýra” (to explain), “skýring” (interpretation), “merkja” (to signify), “merking” (signification), “glosa” (to gloss), “glosur” (glosses). These formulas, as in Maríu saga, signal to readers and listeners that commentary on ambiguities and obscure passages is to follow. The apparent uneasiness regarding the interpretation of potentially ambiguous scriptural and exegetical works and effort to explain and illuminate is certainly not unique to the compiler of Maríu saga or to Grímr Hólmsteinsson. The translators of the Old Norse-Icelandic biblical works comprising Stjórn I and Stjórn III (covering Genesis to Exodus 18 and Joshua to Kings II), for example, were also clearly worried about misinterpretation. The compiler of Stjórn I, in his translation of Genesis, reveals such: Spa manna bekr ok postolanna ritningar verða morgum sua myrkar ok v skilianlegar sem þær se meðr nökkrum þokum eðr skyflkum skygðar ok hulðar. Enn þa uerða þær uel skiliandum monnum sua sem nytsamlight sannleiks skúr ef þær eru meðr margfalldri ok uitrlegri tracteran talaðar ok skynsamlegha skyrðar.36 (The books of the prophets and apostles will for many men be dark and incomprehensible just as they lay hidden or covered in fog or clouds, but they will be well understood by men like a useful shower of truth if they are told with manifold and wise treatment and reasonably explained.)37

To lead readers out of obscurity, the translators supplement the Vulgate text with the Historia scholastica of Peter Comestor and Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale.38 These authoritative sources and others incorporated into

35 Grímr’s commentary on these subjects are treated and compared to the older version of the life of John the Baptist in “The Ten Names of John: A Theological Passage in Jóns saga baptista.” 36 Reidar Astås, ed., Stjórn: Tekst etter håndskriftene, vol. 1 (Oslo: Riksarkivet, 2009), p. 46. 37 Translation, Sverrir Tómasson, in Selma Jónsdóttir, Stefán Karlsson, Sverrir Tómasson, eds., Helgastaðabók: Nikulás saga. Perg. 4to NR. 16 Konungsbókhlöðu í Stokkhólmi (Reykjavík: Sverrir Kristinsson, 1982), p. 168. 38 Stjórn II supplies the rest of the Pentateuch, but it is a closer translation of the Vulgate text and is likely earlier than I and III. For a brief summary of Old Norse-Icelandic biblical

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

79

Stjórn are introduced with the same language we find in Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II. These sources augment texts by providing a “skyring,” a “merking,” or “glosa.”39 This practice was widespread throughout Latin Christendom. Lesley Smith has noted that “for the schoolmen of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the sacra pagina – sacred page – as scripture was known, consisted not merely in the biblical text on its own, but in the text surrounded by a panoply of post-biblical glosses.”40 Glosses were necessary in medieval bibles, as in Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II, because of the potential consequences of ambiguities and multiple interpretations. The potential doctrinal complications of misinterpretation are of course not new to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; it clearly preoccupied Augustine, Jerome, and other early church fathers. Ian Christopher Levy observes in his Introducing Medieval Bible Interpretation that difficult questions were posed by scriptural interpretation: “how many meanings might there be in a given text? How would we know which are legitimate (intended by the author) and which are only the product of our own imagination?”41 Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, which was available in Iceland,42 wrestled with how to reconcile seemingly contradictory readings. Similar misgivings about misinterpretation are also found frequently in, for example, Origen, Gregory the Great, the Elucidarius of Honorius Augustodunensis, Hugh of St. Victor’s Didascalicon, and numerous biblical prefaces.43 Despite this rich tradition of scrutinizing and illuminating ambiguities, the practice is largely absent in the earliest Old Norse-Icelandic saints’ sagas and appears to be an innovation of late thirteenth-century compilers and translators. Maríu saga and Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s Jóns saga baptista II, as Sverrir Tómasson has pointed out in his survey of Old Icelandic prose, represent new developments in the working methods and stylistic tastes preferred by medieval

translation, see Bodil Ejrnæs, “The Bible in the Languages of Scandinavia,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, pp. 239–50. For more in-depth discussions, see Reidar Astås, An Old Norse Biblical Compilation: Studies in Stjórn (New York: Peter Lang, 1991) and Ian J. Kirby, Bible Translation in Old Norse (Geneva: Université de Lausanne, 1986). 39 See Ejrnæs, “The Bible,” p. 249. The verb forms of these words are also common. 40 “The Glossed Bible,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, pp. 363–79. 41 Levy, Introducing Medieval Biblical Interpretation, p. 23. 42 See the 1397 inventory for the Augustinian Viðeyjarklaustr in DI, vol. 4, 111, which lists “Avgustinus de doctrina christiana” amongst its possessions. 43 Many of these works were available whole or in excerpts in the monastic libraries of Iceland. For a general overview of some of these texts and their influence, see Duncan Robertson, Lectio Divina: The Medieval Experience of Reading and Ian Christopher Levy, Introducing Medieval Biblical Interpretation.

80

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

Icelandic hagiographers and that “the most important fourteenth-century authors wrote sagas in the same spirit: they edit lives from various sources, foreign and native, and sometimes add exegetical interpretations as well . . . Their style is florid and considerably influenced by rhetoric.”44 Scholars have tended to divide Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography into two groups based on their age.45 The first group, which is assumed to have been prevalent until the mid-thirteenth century, consists of the earliest translations of saints’ lives that are characterized by a simplistic style and vocabulary as well as the direct speech so closely associated with the Íslendingasögur. These earliest saints’ sagas – identified as the first stage in Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography – are often translated from a single Latin source. This oft-cited schema for the sagas of saints then identifies a second group beginning with Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II in the late thirteenth century and reaching its peak in the fourteenth. Jónas Kristjánsson has offered a succinct summary of the style of the second group: Existing translations were expanded with pious comment and reflection and often refurbished in the so-called ‘florid style.’ As the name suggests, this style is characterised by ornate diction and rhetorical mannerisms: a profusion of adjectives and compound nouns, often abstracts, with frequent repetition for the sake of parallelism or antithesis; abundant alliteration; and a preference for participial verbal forms in imitation of Latin usage. It is true that such features are also typical of the antique learned style that we find, for example, in the Homily Books, but now they are piled up and employed where we find growing preference for the elaborate and bombastic.46

44 “Old Icelandic Prose,” in A History of Icelandic Literature, ed. Daisy L. Neijmann (Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press, 2006), p. 168. 45 On this division, see Jónas Kristjánsson, Eddas and Sagas, trans. Peter Foote (Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1992), pp. 135–46; Margaret Cormack, “Saints’ Lives and Icelandic Literature in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century,” in Saints and Sagas, pp. 27–47; Margaret Cormack, “Sagas of Saints,” in Old Icelandic Literature and Society, ed. Margaret Clunies Ross (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 302–25; Margaret Cormack, “Christian Biography,” in A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture, 27–42; Peter Hallberg, “Imagery in Religious Old Norse Prose Literature: An Outline,” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 102 (1987): 123. Numerous other studies of particular saints’ sagas and the genre as a whole could be mentioned here, but these general surveys offer a succinct account of the division of saints’ sagas into early twelfth- and thirteenth-century translations and compilations produced in the second half of the thirteenth century and throughout the fourteenth. 46 Jónas Kristjánsson, Eddas and Sagas, p. 138. On the rhetorical sophistication of these stylized saints’ sagas, see Þórir Óskarsson, “Rhetoric and Style,” A Companion to Old NorseIcelandic Literature and Culture, pp. 368–70.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

81

Adopters of the new hagiographic style also began to compile and adapt their saints’ sagas from a variety of source material including the Bible, liturgical works, theological texts and homilies, encyclopedic works such as Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale, and exegetical commentaries such as Peter Comestor’s Historia scholastica rather than relying on word-for-word translation of single Latin works.47 It is during this period of revision and compilation that compilers and translators frequently identify themselves. One group in particular, the North Icelandic Benedictine School (Norðlenski Benediktskólinn),48 is responsible for the majority of freshly revised hagiographical sagas and new compilations. Within this group, Bergr Sokkason, Arngrímr Brandsson, and Árni Lárentíusson are regarded of special note. Bergr Sokkason was a monk at Þingeyrar in 1317 before becoming a prior there in 1322 and then later abbot of Munkaþverá. Arngrímr Brandsson began his career at the southern diocese before moving to Oddi and then later Þingeyrar in 1341, where he became abbot in 1351. Árni Lárentíusson, who became a monk at Þingeyrar in the same year as Bergr, is the less productive of the three only by comparison. Since these compilators frequently name themselves as the authors of sagas, it is possible to connect them with many of the works produced in the fourteenth century according to new stylistic tastes. Bergr Sokkason is believed to have compiled a number of learned works, including Nikolás saga erkibyskups II, Michaels saga höfuðengils, Karlamagnúss saga B, Af Agulando konungi, Um kraptaverk ok jartegnir, Jóns saga postola IV, Tveggja postola saga Jóns ok Jacobs, Af Diocletiano keisara, Drauma-Jóns saga, Thomas saga erkibyskups II, Ævintyri í AM 657a 4to, Maria-mirakler, Guðmundar saga byskups C, Magnúss

47 See Cormack, “Sagas of Saints,” p. 309 and “Christian Biography,” pp. 32–34. 48 The phrase was coined by Sverrir Tómasson, in Sverrir Tómasson, “Trúarbókmenntir í lausu máli á síðmiðöld,” in Íslensk bókmenntasaga, 3 vols, ed. Guðrún Nordal, Sverrir Tómasson and Vésteinn Ólason (Reykjavík: Mál og menning, 1992), vol. 1, pp. 265–418. On this school and the sagas attributed to them, see also Karl G. Johansson, “Texter i rörelse: Översättning, original textproduktion och tradering pä norra Island 1150–1400,” in Übersetzen im skandinavischen Mittelalter, ed. Vera Johanterwage and Stefanie Würth (Vienna: Verlag Fassbaender, 2007), pp. 83–106; Karl G. Johansson, “Bergr Sokkason och Arngrímur Brandsson – översättare och författare i samma miljö,” in Old Norse Myths, Literature and Society: Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference, 2–7 July 2000, University of Sydney, ed. Geraldine Barnes and Margaret Clunies Ross (Sydney: Center for Medieval Studies, 2000), pp. 181–97, and Sverrir Tómasson’s chapter in the introduction to Helgastaðabók: Nikulás saga. Perg. 4to NR. 16 Konungsbókhlöðu í Stokkhólmi.

82

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

saga helga, and Jóns saga byskups B.49 Fewer works have been ascribed to Arngrímr; his known and likely compositions include Thomas saga erkibyskups II, a revision of Bergr’s vita of Guðmundr, Guðmundar saga byskups D, Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu,50 and exempla in AM 657 a–b 4to. Árni Lárentíusson is also credited with a smaller list; his works include a life of St. Dunstan, Dunstanus saga, and a revised version of Jóns saga helga. The ornate style of late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Old NorseIcelandic hagiography is among the reasons that the texts of the genre and their importance for and influence on Icelandic literary culture have long been ignored. Jónas Kristjánsson admitted that “to modern taste – at least to that of lukewarm Protestants – these saints’ lives seem monotonous and derivative, even puerile.”51 The well-known scholar Finnur Jónsson has been even more dismissive of the saints’ sagas because of their elaborate style. In his history of Old Norse-Icelandic literature (Den oldnorske og oldislandske literraturs historie), he offers a blunt assessment of Jóns saga baptista II, one of the foremost examples of the new stylistic tastes: noget mere ulæseligt skrift gives der næppe, opfyldt som det er af de evindelige udlægninger og ‘gloser’ til så at sige hver eneste sætning i det til grund liffende skrift . . . Sproget er ret svulstig og sprækket med adjektiver og andre sprogblomster, fremstillingen höjtravende og udtværet. (A more unreadable work can hardly be found, stuffed as it is with incessant interpretations and glosses to almost each and every sentence in the source text . . . The language is quite pompous and fissured with adjectives and other linguistic flowers, the presentation convoluted and fuzzy.)52

While the division of Old Norse-Icelandic hagiography into two groups based on age – with each period represented by certain stylistic characteristics and

49 On this list of works attributed to Bergr and the two following for Arngrímr and Árni, see Karl G. Johansson, “Bergr Sokkason och Arngrímur Brandsson,” p. 186. Johansson synthesizes the attribution of different scholars, and there is some disagreement; for example, both Bergr and Arngrímr have been credited with writing a revised biography of Thomas Becket. 50 See Natalie M. Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints, pp. 83–90. 51 Jónas Kristjánsson, Eddas and Sagas, p. 136. 52 For the quotation and English translation, see Astrid Marner, “Translations of Authorities in Old Norse Hagiography: The Example of Jóns saga baptista.” The 2013 meeting of the Medieval Translator conference: “Translation and Authority Authorities in Translation,” KU Leuven (Belgium), Monday 8 – Friday July 12, 2013, https://www.academia.edu/6454459/ Translations_of_Authorities_in_Old_Norse_Hagiography._The_Example_of_Jons_saga_ baptista.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

83

methods of compilation – is convenient, the manuscript tradition of saints’ sagas, including Maríu saga, challenges such a tidy demarcation. The manuscript tradition reveals that the earliest translations, despite their simplicity in style, use of sources, and interpretive techniques, were not wholly replaced by saints’ sagas compiled according to the newly developed “florid style” of the second half of the thirteenth century. Both types of hagiographical sagas are found alongside one another in the same manuscripts. While newly revised and translated sagas compiled from numerous sources and with accompanying glosses from well-known exegetical works are more widespread in extant manuscripts, scribes continued to copy older, simpler translations into codices and thus did not find it problematic to produce manuscripts containing sagas written in different ages and according to different stylistic principles.53 The voluminous collections of Marian miracles in the manuscripts of Maríu saga also display complex compositional layers. The miracles were translated from a variety of collections during different periods and with distinctive purposes and stylistic tastes.54 The more stylistically sophisticated manuscripts – because they contain sagas of saints furnished with explanatory glosses and that are compiled from numerous sources rather than from single texts – are the Skálholt codex AM 234 fol., the Helgafell manuscript AM 233 a fol., and the composite codex AM 232 fol. Though the manuscript Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 contains only Maríu saga and Marian miracles, it too should be categorized alongside the more sophisticated codices because the redaction of Maríu saga housed in the manuscript presents the greatest number of rhetorical embellishments and expanded explicatory commentaries.55 53 Lucy Collings has already observed similarly in her study of the saints’ sagas in Codex Scardensis. See her dissertation The Codex Scardensis: Studies in Icelandic Hagiography (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1969), p. 2: “The contents of the Codex Scardensis are interesting from the point of view of their breadth. Whereas the other well-known collections of saints’ lives, such as AM 645 4to and AM 652 4to contain works which are fairly uniform in age, the younger Codex Scardensis contains sagas which range from the 13th to the 14th centuries, presenting a cross-section of hagiographic saga styles which originate from the developing tastes in hagiographic literature, but, by virtue of their existence in one collection, bespeak the continuing popularity of the older style side by side with the new.” 54 The stylistic distinctions amongst the Marian miracles have been treated at length by Ole Widding. Widding classifies the legends into the categories “popular,” “learned,” and “florissant” in “Jartegn og Maríu saga. Eventyr,” in Norrøn fortællekunst: Kapitler af den norsk–islandske middelalderlitteraturs historie, ed. Hans Bekker-Nielsen et al. (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1965), pp. 127–36. The miracles are also examined in the longer study “Norrøne Marialegender på europæisk baggrund.” 55 See Tomassini, An Analysis, p. 17: “S represents the longest redaction among the three, partly because its elaborate style makes extensive use of rhetorical devices, partly because its

84

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

The sagas preserved in AM 234 fol. mostly conform to the new explicatory and compilatory techniques developed at the end of the thirteenth century. The AM 234 fol. redaction of Maríu saga is only slightly shorter and a little less rhetorically stylized than the Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 version. All of the additional exegetical passages previously discussed are incorporated into this manuscript. As Laura Tomassini’s analysis of the three redactions has shown, the AM 234 fol. redaction more closely translates from Latin source texts and “is perhaps the most balanced of the three, as regards its content and style.”56 The original opening text of the manuscript, Thómass saga erkibiskups, is a revision of Bergr Gunnsteinsson’s earlier vita of Thomas Becket. This revision has not survived complete, but what is extant reveals that additional material from John of Salisbury’s Vita and Benedict of Peterborough’s Miracula was used to supplement the original translation.57 The saga of the Apostle Paul which directly precedes Maríu saga is a compilation of the late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century type. The saga, according to Kirsten Wolf, is “based directly or indirectly on a glossed version of the Historia actuum apostolorum now attributed to Peter of Poitiers, Pauline hagiography, and a commentary on St. Paul’s epistles.”58 Translations of liturgy and scripture are introduced in Páls saga postola II by the same kind of formulas found in Maríu saga (e.g. þetta þyðiz sva)59 and the audience is often signaled to listen to an interpretation through familiar phrases such as “ok her mark til þess” (and here this signifies) and “ok skyra sva helgar ritningar/helgir feðr” (and the holy writings/holy fathers explain). Explicatory digressions in Páls saga postola II comment on, for example, the chronology of the Feast of the Conversion of Paul, on the symbolic meaning of Paul’s new name, and, in the longest passage, on heaven, hell, purgatory, and what Paul meant when he referred to the third heaven.60 The compiler of Páls saga postola II relies on a

content alternates narrative with exegetical comments and further anecdotes not attested in the other two redactions.” The additional episodes not found in the other redactions are an account of the erupting oil spring in Rome which occurs during the reign of Augustus and a brief discussion of Anne’s three marriages based on the Trinubium Annae. See futher Tomassini, An Analysis, p. 151. 56 Tomassini, An Analysis, pp. 25–27; 16. 57 See Wolf, The Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose, p. 361. 58 Wolf, The Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose, p. 304. 59 The compiler of Páls saga postola II provides translations and explanations for Acts 22:9, Galatians 2:11, Luke 22:43, and 1 Corinthians 3:2. 60 On the saga’s treatment of the “Last Things” and explanation of the third heaven, see the final chapter of this book.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

85

number of sources and names – aside from the Gospels – Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and Josephus as the authorities for the supplementary commentary. The Ágústínus saga copied into the manuscript was translated or commissioned by the same Runólfr Sigmundsson who requested a revised and glossed saga of John the Baptist from Grímr Hólmsteinsson. This saga of St. Augustine, however, is not compiled according to the same standards as Jóns saga baptista II. Marianne Kalinke has noted, though, that “the vita is characterized by a notable attention to the significance of learning and its transmission through teaching, disputation, and the writing of books.”61 A few brief Latin passages in Ágústínus saga are translated or paraphrased for the audience, but references to authorities are rare – who could be more authoritative than the subject of the saga? Yet, according to Kalinke, it is likely that a monastic audience is suggested by the saga because that community “would have understood Runólfr’s translation on a level obscured for the laymen.”62 Though they are learned monastic texts full of edificatory material supplemented occasionally with explanatory commentary, the other sagas in AM 234 fol. lack the compilatory and excursive style that characterizes Maríu saga and Páls saga postola II. The fact that AM 234 fol. consists mostly of revised and newly composed compilations stuffed with explication aimed at eliminating ambiguities and illuminating obscure figurae – not to mention the manuscript’s ownership by the episcopal see at Skálholt and its attention to the virtues of patience and humility – suggest that this codex was likely used to both elucidate undereducated clerics and in pastoral duties. Though they would have been arranged in calendar order, the texts in AM 234 fol. offer a great deal more than just readings for feast days; the explicatory excursus in the texts offers a versatile manuscript to the Skálholt community charged with correcting any misinterpretation among the clerics and the laity. Of Augustinian origin, like AM 234 fol., the Helgafell manuscript AM 233 a fol. contains sagas compiled according to different standards of amplification and interpretation. The fragmentary state of the manuscript introduces difficulty in fully assessing the sagas in the manuscript, but it is clear that the codex contains the Jóns saga baptista II of Grímr Hólmsteinsson and a copy of the most expansive and rhetorically flourished redaction of Maríu saga (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11) alongside sagas of saints translated from single-source texts. The manuscript also preserves a saga of Martha and Mary Magdalen compiled 61 Kalinke, “Augustinus saga: A Learned and a Popular Version,” in Samtíðarsögur: The Contemporary Sagas; The Ninth International Saga Conference, ed. Sverrir Tómasson (Háskólanum á Akureyri, 1994), vol. 2, p. 436. 62 Kalinke, “Augustinus saga: A Learned and a Popular Version,” p. 437.

86

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

from the Bible, Peter Comestor’s Historia Scholastica, Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale, Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in evangelia, Augustine’s In Iohannis evangelium tractatus and Sermo 244, Honorius Augustodunensis’s Speculum ecclesiae, Bede’s In Marci evangelium, Innocent III, and, according to Natalie M. Van Deusen, a Dominican liturgical office.63 This saga of Martha and Mary Magdalen shares a number of features with Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II including its reliance on a variety of exegetical sources, translation of liturgical verses, rhetorical flourishing, and explanation of scriptural and theological obscurities.64 In her recent study and edition of the saga, Van Deusen argues that the text was likely authored by Arngrímr Brandsson and thus should be connected to the North Icelandic Benedictine School.65 It is clear that Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu was compiled according to the standards established first by Maríu saga and then later by Jóns saga baptista II. It should be no surprise then that this saga is found copied alongside those two forerunners in new hagiographical tastes. The formal design of AM 233 a fol. (as discussed in the first chapter), its selection of some revised and compilational texts, and production by the Augustinian community at Helgafell signal a manuscript intended for a more sophisticated audience, though its size would have made it ideal for communal settings. The compilation Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu is also copied into AM 235 fol., but its inclusion here is not as easily explained because, though the manuscript was written around the year 1400, the saga of Martha and Mary Magdalen is the only clearly compilatory text in the codex.66 The extract of Maríu saga in the manuscript, for example, is taken from the chapters on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary but the AM 235 fol. extract of this section of the saga has been further condensed down to a reading only concerning the Feast of the Assumption. Maríu saga, as I have already briefly noted and discuss in greater detail in chapters 4 and 5, interrupts its own commentary on the Assumption to answer puzzling questions about the place of the Last Judgment, what happens to the souls and bodies of the faithful after 63 On the sources of the saga, see Wolf, Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose, p. 223; Natalie Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints, pp. 67–83; and Van Deusen, “The Dominican Connection: Some Comments on the Sources, Provenance, and Authorship of Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 113 (2014): 206–21. 64 On the style of Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu, see Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints, pp. 84–90. 65 Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints, pp. 83–90. 66 I should note here that no pre-compilatory version of the saga is known, so no other version may have been available to the makers of AM 235 fol. I am grateful to Natalie M. Van Deusen for pointing this out to me.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

87

death, and what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God.67 The scribes of AM 235 fol. have removed all of this additional commentary but have preserved the saga’s exegesis of the liturgy for the Feast of the Assumption (Canticles 6:9) and explanation for why some believe the Virgin Mary was transmitted to heaven in both soul and body. The AM 235 fol. saga of St. Magnus of Orkney is the condensed version of the vita (Magnús saga eyjajarls skemmri). The relative shortness of this redaction of Magnús saga, according to Maria-Claudia Tomany, “seems to derive from an almost complete absence of theological commentary, which on the other hand abounds in the longer version Magnúss saga lengri.”68 John the Baptist’s life is related in the manuscript AM 235 fol. as well, but this is not Grímr’s expanded saga; the manufacturers of the codex preferred an older version of the life of the saint that is shorter, translated from a single source, and more homiletic in tone. The evidence of the codex, with the exception of Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu, indicates that the scribes were directed to incorporate condensed, rather than amplified, versions of the saints’ sagas being copied into the manuscript.69 The manuscript was written at Skálholt, where late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century “florid” sagas were readily available. The choice of sagas for AM 235 fol. must then be at the direction of the institution that commissioned the manuscript for an audience either less capable of digesting glossed saints’ sagas or who were sufficiently educated in theology and didn’t require the additional material. AM 232 fol., as I argue further in the next chapter, is also likely to be associated at some stage in its existence with the Benedictines of northern Iceland; the texts stitched together in that manuscript70 are indicative of a clerical audience eager to have texts furnished with additional commentary and that would be useful in their own devotion and pastoral duties. Three of the five texts (Barlaams ok Josaphats saga, Jóns saga baptista II, and Vitae Patrum) in the manuscript are defective.

67 On the importance of this distinction, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 55: “The image (imago) is the natural image of God intrinsic in every human soul; the likeness (similitudo) is the potential, through grace, of becoming like him in eternal life.” 68 Tomany, “Sacred Non-Violence, Cowardice Profaned: St. Magnus of Orkney in Nordic Hagiography and Historiography,” p. 131. 69 It is likely that since the scribes didn’t have access to a condensed saga about Mary Magdalen, they incorporated the amplified one into the manuscript. 70 On the codicological stages of the manuscript, see the next chapter.

88

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

The first in the current binding and in the age of copying (ca. 1300) is Barlaams ok Josaphats saga.71 The saga is a translation of the well-known and widely popular Christianization of the life of Buddha; it tells the story of an Indian prince named Josaphat who, through the teaching of the monk Barlaam, converts to Christianity.72 The Old Norse-Icelandic translation is extant in fifteen whole and defective parchment manuscripts, which is a testament to its popularity. The saga is translated from Latin, but the translator often incorporates other material as well. It is difficult to classify the legend as a compilation in the same sense as the copies of Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II sewn into the same codex, but it is a learned text that borrows from supplemental material. Magnus Rindal observes in his facsimile edition of Stock. Perg. fol. no. 6 that “reading the saga is rather heavy going, on account of both the matter and the style. Passages told as parables and exempla are among the lighter parts. The style is ‘learned,’ with constant use of parallelism and alliteration.”73 If the manuscript was at one point in the possession of the Bishop of Hólar Jón Vilhjálmsson Craxton (d. 1440), as is argued in the next chapter, then the collection of texts here – Barlaams ok Josaphats saga, Maríu saga, Transitus Mariae, Jóns saga baptista II, and Vitae Patrum – is in keeping with the learned interests of the northern Icelandic monasteries and their colleting of manuscripts replete with exemplary texts. Not all manuscripts containing Maríu saga contain other compilations and exegetically embellished works. AM 656 I 4to, a manuscript containing Maríu saga and sagas of the apostles, is badly damaged and the number of lacunae in Maríu saga introduce difficulties in fully assessing the compilatory and explicatory techniques used throughout the manuscript. Most of the Maríu saga commentary on the Gradual Psalms survives in AM 656 I 4to and does not indicate any abridgment by the scribe; there is a lacuna where we would expect to find the saga’s treatment of the Assumption and Last Judgment, but what is extant does not hint at any excising on the part of the copyist. The other roughly contemporary texts in the manuscript, though, all conform to the older hagiographic

71 The saga is edited in C.R. Unger, ed., Barlaams ok Josaphats saga (Christiania, Oslo: Feilberg & Landmark, 1851); Magnus Rindal, ed., Barlaams ok Josaphats saga (Oslo: Norsk historisk kjeldeskriftinstitutt, 1981); and in facsimile in Magnus Rindal, ed., Barlaams ok Josaphats saga: Manuscript no. 6 fol. in the Royal Library, Stockholm and the Norwegian Fragments (Oslo: Society for Publication of Old Norwegian Manuscripts, 1980). 72 On the legend, see Philip Almond, “The Buddha of Christendom: A Review of the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat,” Religious Studies 23.3 (1987): 391–406. 73 Rindal, Barlaams ok Josaphats saga: Manuscript no. 6 fol. in the Royal Library, Stockholm and the Norwegian Fragments, p. viii.

Chapter 3 Glossing “Myrku figurur”

89

style in that they are translations in simple diction of single sources. These sagas tell a history of the life of the saints being celebrated, highlight their virtues or other special attributes, and recount, if applicable, their martyrdoms. Later owners of the manuscript added a second Jakobs saga postola (ca. 1600) at 56r. In its current form, then, the manuscript contains two sagas of Jakobs saga postola. This second saga is a translation, like the first, of Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina (BHL) 4057, but it is supplemented with material from Speculum ecclesiae. This is a unique example of old and new texts dedicated to the same saint existing together in one manuscript. We do not often find two versions of the same saga copied alongside one another. It is of course possible that the current state of the manuscript is the result of its being pieced together by Árni Magnússon. The development of revised texts and their interpretative digressions indicate that needs and tastes changed in the late thirteenth century. Simple translations – homiletic in nature – from singular Latin source texts were found to be insufficient, at least when it came to some saints. Readers in the late thirteenth century and in the fourteenth clearly required hagiography furnished with explanations of doctrinal obscurities; the anxieties witnessed by the author of Maríu saga and Grírm Hólmsteinsson were clearly shared by other contemporaries and following generations. Saints’ sagas composed in the older, simpler style continued to be copied alongside the new and more rhetorically ornate compilatons. Both clerical and lay audiences clearly found manuscripts containing both types valuable for their versatility. The makers, owners, and audience(s) of the manuscripts of Maríu saga found it unproblematic to copy the old alongside the new. The compositional layers and the explicatory styles of the various compilers copied in each codex are clearly visible when we read the sagas in their manuscript contexts; these features are obscured, however, when we consult printed editions, even if those print editions include variants and multiple versions in the critical apparatus.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary and Theological Disagreement in Manuscript AM 232 fol. When Pope Pius XII defined Mary’s bodily Assumption as dogma in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus1 of November 1, 1950, he defended the adoption of the doctrine mostly with the arguments debated by medieval theologians.2 The scholastic theologians of the medieval period, Pius XII explains, based their support of Mary’s bodily Assumption on Jesus’s filial love for his mother, her divine motherhood, her exalted holiness, which surpassed all saints and angels, the intimate union of Mary and her Son, and the affection which passed between the two.3 Her freedom from sin and her con-corporeality with her child are also important factors in the acceptance of the doctrine. Pius XII is not satisfied with these arguments alone, as his medieval predecessors were not either, and turns to scripture for support of Mary’s special privilege. To this end he cites Psalm 131:8 (Surge, Domine, in requiem tuam, tu et arca sanctificationis tuae/ Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified), Canticles 3:6 (Quae est ista quae ascendit per desertum sicut virgula fumi ex aromatibus myrrhae, et thuris, et universi pulveris pigmentarii?/ Who is she that goeth up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh, and frankincense, and of all the powders of the perfumer?), Revelation 12:1 (Et signum magnum apparuit in caelo: mulier amicta sole, et luna sub pedibus ejus, et in capite ejus corona stellarum duodecim/ And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars), and Luke 1:28 (Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus/ And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women) as a few examples.4 What is absent from Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution on the bodily Assumption of Mary is the group of texts which began the debate, the apocryphal 1 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_ 19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html. 2 Parts of this chapter have been adapted from my dissertation, Translating Marian Doctrine into the Vernacular: The Bodily Assumption in Middle English and Old Norse-Icelandic Literature (PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2014). 3 Munificentissimus Deus, paragraph 25. 4 For Latin and translation, see Douay-Rheims Vulgate, www.drbo.org. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-005

92

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

Transitus Mariae legends in particular. He also omits references to the ninthcentury text Cogitis me falsely attributed to Jerome,5 Pseudo-Augustine’s eleventh-century Liber de assumptione beatae Mariae virginis,6 and Elisabeth of Schönau’s (d. 1164) Visio de resurrectione beate virginis Mariae,7 all of which represent major interventions in the development of the doctrine of the bodily Assumption. Interest in the bodily Assumption of Mary strengthened in the West between the sixth or seventh century, when the Eastern Transitus legends became known, and the twelfth century, when Elisabeth of Schönau (1129–1165) received a vision of the Virgin which confirmed the holy mother’s dual Assumption in soul and body.8 The Feast of the Assumption was transported to the Western Church from the East, where Mary’s Assumption in body and/or soul was widely accepted. The Eastern Church used several apocryphal narratives to celebrate the Virgin’s bodily Assumption. The Western Church, however, was hesitant to use these apocryphal writings during the feast. As many of the medieval theologians commentating on the Virgin’s death make clear, scripture, early Christian writing, and the pre-Nicene Fathers were all silent on the matter of Mary’s departure from life and ascent to heaven. There was a need then for texts which could provide more acceptable readings for the liturgy and sermons that could be read during the celebration of the feast. The texts used most frequently in vernacular discussions of the Assumption are the apocryphal Transitus legends, passages from the Canticles and the liturgy and commentaries based on those passages, Luke 10:38–42 (“intravit Jesus in

5 The letter was actually written by the Carolingian Paschasius Radbertus (d. 865), abbot of Corbie. Paschasius’s letter to the nuns at Soissons is edited in De Partv Virginis/De Assvmptione Sanctae Mariae Virginis. ed. E. Ann Matter and Alberti Ripberger. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medieaeualis, 56C (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985). 6 Patrologia Latina 40, 1140–48. The text was written most likely by a disciple of Anselm. 7 For the Latin edition, see F.W.E. Roth, Die Visionen der hl. Elisabeth und die Schriften der Aebte Ekbert und Emecho von Schönau (Brünn: Verlag der Studien aus dem Benedictiner – und Cistercienser – Orden, 1884), pp. 53–55. For the English translation, see Anne L. Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau: The Complete Works (York: Paulist Press, 2000), pp. 209–11. 8 See Henry Mayr-Harting, “The Idea of the Assumption in the West,” in The Church and Mary: Papers Read at the 2001 Summer Meeting and the 2002 Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. R.N. Swanson (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society by the Boydell Press, 2004), p. 86. Brian K. Reynolds also gives a summary of the development of the doctrine of the Assumption in the Eastern and Western Churches, with quotations from primary texts. See Gateway to Heaven, pp. 293–329. Reynolds sees the Pseudo-Augustinian Liber as overturning the authority of Jerome in Cogitis me, while Mayr-Harting favors Elisabeth’s vision as the intervention that finally displaced Jerome’s letter.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

93

quoddam castellum”) and commentaries on those verses,9 the Cogitis me of the Carolingian Paschasius Radbertus, which was for so long falsely attributed to Jerome, the Pseudo-Augustinian Liber de assumptione beatae Mariae Virginis, and Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visio de resurrectione beate virginis Mariae. Pseudo-Augustine’s Liber and Elisabeth’s Visio are both products of the socalled Golden Age of Marian devotion that developed from the final decades of the eleventh century to the beginning of the thirteenth.10 It is in this period that much of Marian doctrine is developed and defined and it is also during this period that theologians engage in commentaries on the Marian sense of the Canticles,11 compose homilies on the Gospel reading from Luke,12 and write lives of Mary supported with scripture and other authoritative sources.13 Throughout this long century theologians and scholastics came to accept the bodily Assumption with more frequency even though the official Church stance remained non-committal.14 The main argument in favor of the bodily Assumption as developed by theologians in the twelfth century and further

9 When the Feast of the Assumption was adopted in the seventh century, there was already a lection for August 15. That is Luke 10:38–42. The Eastern Church changed the Gospel pericope for August 15 to Luke 11:27–28 (“Beatus venter qui te portavit, et ubera quae suxisti”). Western theologians recognized that there was a seeming incoherence about the reading for the feast, but the Mary and Martha story remained as the lection, prompting many to write sermons explaining why this Gospel reading was related to Mary’s Assumption (the reading was deemed appropriate because the Virgin Mary exemplified both the active and contemplative lives presented by Mary and Martha in the Gospel of Luke). The most widely disseminated of these was Ralph d’Escures’s twelfth-century Homilia de assumptione which was translated into Old Norse-Icelandic, as well as other vernaculars. On this, see Aidan Conti, “The Old Norse Afterlife of Ralph d’Escures Homilia de assumptione Mariae,” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 107.2 (April 2008): 219. See also Mary Clayton, The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), chapter 2. 10 For a detailed discussion of the Golden Age of Marian devotion, see Luigi Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologians, pp. 105–8, and Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 5. 11 See E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity, pp. 205–10. 12 The most widely disseminated of these is probably Ralph d’Escures’s Homilia de assumptione Mariae, which was incorporated into later redactions of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary. See Aidan Conti, “The Old Norse Afterlife of Ralph d’Escures Homilia de assumptione Mariae,” p. 218. 13 The Vita sancte Marie of Thomas of Hales and the Vita beatae Virginis Marie et Salvatoris Rhythmica are two examples of this trend. They both focus on doctrinal moments of the life of Mary and Jesus. The Vita Rhythmica was massively popular and served as the basis for vernacular lives of Mary; the Latin text, unfortunately, remains, for the most part, un-studied. 14 See Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven, pp. 319–29.

94

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

contemplated by the scholastics of the thirteenth was that Mary deserved the protection of her body because of, first and foremost, her con-corporeality with her son. God had protected the human flesh of his son and could do so also for Mary. It would be right for him to do so because of her absolute grace and sinlessness, because she was the mother of God, because he could not allow the Temple of the Lord to decay, and finally because Mary, through the incarnation, helped reverse the sins of Adam and Eve.15 If Mary was without spot, as Canticles 4:7 had been interpreted (Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te) then she was exempt from the corruption of the body as her son had been.16 All of the available commentary, whether supportive or skeptical of a bodily Assumption, was incorporated into Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda aurea. The supportive arguments were presented in Vincent of Beauvais’s Speculum historiale in his chapter titled “de Historia assumptionis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis.” It was through these two Dominican collections that the theological arguments concerning the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption reached much of Europe. These two compendia were clearly known in Iceland, but their influence on Maríu saga and the Marian miracles requires further investigation.17 After the developments in the doctrine of the bodily Assumption of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Luigi Gambero suggests, “the faithful intuitively recognized that faith in the Assumption led to the recognition of other Marian truths implicit in the mystery, such as Mary’s queenship, her mediation and heavenly intercession, and her role as paradigm of the heavenly Church, with regard to the earthly Church.”18 Thus the promises of the faith disseminated from the clergy to the laity could be confirmed in the doctrine of the bodily Assumption. For medieval Christians, then, Mary’s bodily Assumption was significant because it confirmed her reversal of the life of Eve. It also ensured that all the faithful will rise again, overcome death, and receive reward in heaven.19 Mary’s bodily resurrection proved her triumph over death. 15 See Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven, p. 326. 16 This is an argument that Thomas Aquinas would make in both Expositio super salutation angelica and Summa Theologiae III, q. 21, a. 1. 17 The Maríu saga commentary on the Virgin Mary’s Assumption does not appear to me to borrow from either the Legenda aurea or the Speculum historiale. 18 Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages, p. 107. 19 See Marina Warner, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary (New York: Vintage, 1983), p. 90: “For although the Virgin’s escape from the grave was a special tribute to her purity, the medieval man and woman did not believe that her fate was exceptional in quite the way the modern dogma of the Assumption has made it. Eternal life was the reward of other saints and holy men, as it was the ultimate destiny of every faithful soul.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

95

She participated in the redeeming of life through the incarnation and through her own death and Assumption in body and soul. Icelandic monastic communities were not isolated from the discussion over the Virgin Mary’s death, ascension to heaven, and the fate of her bodily remains; it must be said, however, that in medieval Iceland discussion over whether the Virgin Mary had been assumed in soul alone or in both body and soul was restricted to a few small clerical circles. The problem is addressed in a few sermons, in Maríu saga, in a translation of Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visio de resurrectione Beate Virginis Marie, and in the translation of the Transitus Mariae A (Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea) which is preserved only in the manuscript AM 232 fol. The Assumption of Mary, in fact, seems to have been devotionally significant for the community in northern Iceland that pieced the manuscript together over time. While three of the manuscripts preserving full medieval copies of Maríu saga, AM 234 fol. and Stock. Perg. 4to nos. 1 and 11, represent planned or conceptually organized manuscripts written by single scribes or scribes working together in some capacity, AM 232 fol. was written in four stages by a variety of scribes and stitched together over time. The first stage of the manuscript is a fragmentary copy of the Old Norse translation of the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat (a Christianized life of Buddha) written by one scribe around 1300. On the originally blank verso side of folio 54 there is an account of the debts of the recently deceased Jón Ketilsson (1416–ca. 1440). The second stage of the manuscript, written around 1350, is a complete copy of Maríu saga with appended miracles written by three scribes and a copy of Grímr Hólmsteinsson’s Jóns saga baptista II. The third preserves a copy from ca. 1370 of the Old NorseIcelandic translation of Vitae Patrum (The Lives of the Desert Fathers). The fourth is an Icelandic translation of the well-traveled account of Mary’s death and Assumption to heaven – the Transitus Mariae attributed to Joseph of Arimathea.20 The Transitus translation is copied in a fifteenth-century hand

The Assumption of the Virgin reflects a deeply ingrained attitude to the afterlife that is an essential feature of the Christian philosophy.” 20 The text is edited in Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen, “An Old Norse Translation of the ‘Transitus Mariae,’” Mediaeval Studies 23 (1961): 324–33. The manuscript, and the translation in comparison to its likely source, is discussed in Dario Bullitta, “The Tuscan Provenance of Framför Maríu,” forthcoming in The Cult of Saints in Medieval Iceland: An International Symposium. Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea’s account of Mary’s death and Assumption is edited by Constantine Tischendorf in Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1866), pp. 113–23, from three Italian manuscripts dated to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. These manuscripts are listed by Tischendorf as BAV, Vat. lat. MS 4363 (MS A); Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS 0 35 (MS B); and Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS

96

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

(likely around 1440)21 on two leaves and has been inserted into the manuscript at the end of the Marian miracles as a sort of response to Maríu saga. All of the texts in this manuscript have been either edited or consulted in the production of editions, though again, separately from each other. Unger used the manuscript in his editions of Barlaams ok Josaphats saga (1851, with Rudolf Keyser), Postola sögur, Heilagra manna søgur, and Maríu saga. Unger suggested that the texts were stitched together in the codex because they were all the same size: “Disse Sagaer ere alle skrevne af forskjellige hænder, og formodentlig paa grun af det overensstemmende format, tospaltet folio, blevne bundne i een bog” (These sagas are all written by different scribes, and presumably the leaves were bound together in one book on the grounds of the same bi-folded folio format).22 Unger did not, however, edit the unique Old NorseIcelandic translation of the Transitus Mariae written in the fifteenth-century hand. It is difficult to explain why Unger did not edit this text since its opening line, “Nafne vors herra jesu christi byriazt hier miraculum af framfor uorar frv sancte marie” (in the name of our lord Jesus Christ here begins the miracle of the Assumption of our lady St. Mary),23 clearly establishes the text as a miracle. The two leaves preserving the translation of the Transitus are smaller than the leaves in the rest of the codex and have been inserted at the end of the manuscript’s copy of Maríu saga and the miracles, after a blank page on 83v. Unger does not mention leaves 84 and 85 in the introduction to the saga and his apparatus makes clear that he considered the AM 232 fol. copy of Maríu saga to end at folio 83r.24 I considered the possibility that the Transitus text was not in the manuscript when Unger consulted it for his edition of Maríu saga. This is not the case, though. While I found no specific mention of the Transitus text in Árni Magnússon’s catalog in AM 435 a 4to (1721–1728)25 or in Jón Ólafsson’s katalog

Plut.15, dex.12 (MS C) (p. xliii). Tischendorf’s base text is A, but his notes supply variant readings from B and C. On the Transitus legends more generally, see Mary Clayton, “The Transitus Mariae: The Tradition and Its Origins,” Apocrypha 10 (1999): 74–98, and Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 21 On this dating, see Bullitta, “The Tuscan Provenance,” pp. 8 and 30. 22 Unger, Postola sögur: Legendariske fortællinger om apostlernes liv, deres kamp for kristendommens udbredelse samt deres martyrdød (Christiania: B.M. Bentzen, 1874), pp. xxviii–xxix. 23 84ra1–84ra3. 24 Unger, Maríu saga, p. xii. 25 https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/imaging/da/AM04-0435-a#page/9v++(19+of+316)/mode/2up.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

97

in AM 384 fol. (1700–1749),26 the translation is described in the unfinished handwritten catalog compiled by Jón Sigurðsson (1811–1879) in AM 394 fol.27 and the two-volume catalog of Kristian Kålund (1844–1919).28 The Transitus text was thus in the manuscript around the time that Unger was consulting AM 232 fol. for his edition of Maríu saga. The Transitus text was later edited in a short article published in 1961 by Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen,29 though, importantly, Widding and Bekker-Nielsen did not comment on how this later addition to the manuscript might change or complicate the way the manuscript’s users might have read its copy of Maríu saga and its commentary on the bodily Assumption of Mary. This later addition to the manuscript is not insignificant. The translation of the Transitus Mariae confirms the Virgin Mary’s Assumption to heaven in both soul and body while the saga directly preceding this younger text is skeptical of this belief and the apocryphal texts (like the Transitus) promoting such an event. This manuscript and the translation of the Transitus Mariae reflect changing attitudes among Icelandic clerics towards the validity of the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption to heaven; early Old Norse-Icelandic texts treated the possibility with caution and with doubt, while those composed in the thirteenth century and after began to reveal more sympathy to the likelihood that God would not allow Mary to suffer bodily decay. The oldest extant texts in Old Norse-Icelandic that speak on the Assumption of Mary are two homilies from the late twelfth/early thirteenth century preserved in The Old Icelandic Homily Book (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15, ca. 1200).30 The manuscript contains sixty-two homilies and other religious works including hagiography. Much of the homiletic material is clearly directed towards a monastic audience, but some of the material comments on moral and penitential issues as

26 https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM02-0384. 27 291r–292v (Transitus at 291v). https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/imaging/en/AM020394#page/291v++(584+of+650)/mode/2up. 28 Kristian Kålund. Katalog over den Arnamagnænske håndskriftsamling, 2 vols. (Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, 1888), p. 192. Kålund briefly mentions the subject of the text and notes only that it was added later (senere indskudte) and written by a fifteenth-century hand (beskrvne med en hånd fra 15. årh.). 29 Widding and Bekker-Nielsen, “An Old Norse Translation of the ‘Transitus Mariae.’” 30 The Old Icelandic Homily Book has been edited by Theodor Wisén, ed., Homilíu-bók: Isländska Homilier Efter Handskrift Från Tolfte århundradet (Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1872) and Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen, The Icelandic Homily Book: Perg. 15 4to in the Royal Library, Stockholm (Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, 1993).

98

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

well as models of behavior that would have been accessible to lay audiences.31 Thomas N. Hall refers to this manuscript as a “debased form of a liturgical homiliary” because it does not follow a pericopal order and “conflates two independent series of sermons to which other texts have been added that are difficult to class as sermons.”32 The homilies on the Assumption, and many of the other texts in the manuscript, were likely copied from older sermons from perhaps as early as 1150, not long after the first churches in Iceland had been founded. The first homily on the Ascension of Mary is fragmentary, and the reference to Mary’s death is brief: “helgar bócr segia . at hon hafe fram liþet af þessa héims lífe oc faret í anan héim til [eil]ifrar dýrþar” (holy books say that she has passed from this earthly life and into heaven into everlasting glory).33 Most of the rest of the homily stresses the importance of holding the feasts of the saints, but towards the end, the homilist reveals some awareness of the apocryphal legends of Mary’s death: “þat var þa er Maria var heime liþen. at þa voro aller postolar hiá . oc þiónoþo lícgrefte hennar” (When Mary passed from this earth all of the apostles were next to her and assisted in her burial).34 The second homily on the Assumption (assumptio sancte Marie)35 is much longer and attempts to handle questions about Mary’s death in more detail. Significant portions of the homily are based on the Cogitis me of Paschasius Radbertus and are also to be found in Maríu saga.36 The Icelandic homilist only

31 See Hall, “Old Norse-Icelandic Sermons,” in The Sermon: Typologie des Sources du Moyen Age Occidental, ed. Beverly Mayne Kienzle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), p. 667. On the manuscript in general, see Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen’s facsimile edition and transcript, The Icelandic Homily Book: Perg. 15o in the Royal Library, Stockholm. 32 Hall, “Old Norse-Icelandic Sermons,” p. 670. Hall gives (p. 692), an overview of the contents of the manuscript and the identified source material: forty-two texts and fragments which are sermons or pericope homilies, a fragmentary allegorical explanation of the eight musical church modes, three commentaries on the Lord’s prayer, two versions of the Apostle’s Creed, and commentary on the mass based on Honorius Augustodunensis’s Gemma animae, a partial translation of Pseudo-Ambrose’s Acta S. Sebastiania, an account of the Passion, extracts from the saga of Stephen, a translation from the Regula S. Benedicti, a translation of the Trinubium Annae, a treatise on the priest’s pastoral duties. Sixteen of the sermons, Hall notes, are “more or less direct translations of widely available Latin works including sermons by Augustine, Bede, Gregory the Great, and Caesarius of Arles, while the rest are often highly original in their manipulation of both traditional and non-traditional materials.” 33 Van Weenen, 1v2–1v3. The “helgar bócr” are not mentioned by name. 34 Van Weenen, 1v24–1v25. 35 2r1–5r6 in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15. 36 A lost vernacular source behind this commentary on the Assumption as found in the Norwegian Homily Book, the Icelandic Homily Book, and several sections of Maríu saga is presumed. See Gabriel Turville-Petre, “The Old Norse Homily on the Assumption and the Maríu

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

99

mentions the Assumption once though and avoids speaking about her death throughout much of the narrative. Though the homily is dedicated to the Assumption, the homilist covers Mary’s history from her genealogy and birth to her life with her son and the apostles, and then finally her death and role in heaven as an intercessor. On the topic of the death of Mary and the ambiguity surrounding the fate of her body, the homilist follows Paschasius Radbertus’s Cogitis me and cites Jerome as the authority on this matter: Þat finzk oft isögum heilagra manna. at englar goþs vittrasc iandláte þeirra meþ lióse. eþa þeir es hia standa kena himneskan ilm eþa heyra fagran söng. En ef droten iesus Christr véiter oft slíka dýrþ i andláte þræle sina. þa megom ver at glíkendom marka hverso mikla dýrþ hann mynde sýna i andláte móþor sinar er drotning er omnium sanctorum. Eþa ella hefþe hann eige halden þau lög es hann bauþ hveriom manne at göfga föþor sin oc móþor. Af þui scolom vér trua at droten iesus christr fór i gegn önd moþor sinar meþ alre himna dýrþ. oc góþom ilm. oc vas sén i andláte henar oc héyrþ öll su dýrþ es men mótto standasc at sia eþa héyra. En als likamr henar fanzc eige, þa hygia marger at hon hafe upp veret numen bæþe meþ önd oc licama. En likamr henar vas grafen i dal þeim es heiter uallis iosafaph. oc vas geor síþan kirkia dýrleg henne til vegs. en nu es þar tóm funden gröfen. En önd hennar vas upp hafeþ yver öll engla fylgia. oc lúta henne aller englar oc aller helger menn. Jeronimus prestr seger skýrt at hon andaþesc oc vas grafen. en hann seger eige víst hvárt heldr vas at hon tók upriso likams sins lítlo epter andlát sitt. eþa goþ fal likam hennar at synþger menn mege eige siá. (It is found often in the sagas of saints that the angels of God are revealed at their (the saints’) deaths with light, or that those who are standing near smell a heavenly fragrance or hear beautiful song. And if the Lord Jesus Christ grants such glory often in the deaths of his servants, then we may think it likely how much glory he would show in the death of his mother who is the queen of all saints, or else he would not be holding that law in which he commanded that all should honor his father and mother (Exodus 20:12; Matt. 15:4). Because of this we should believe that the Lord Jesus Christ went to meet the soul of his mother with all the glory of heaven and was seen and heard in her death all that glory which humanity may stand to see or hear. But because her body has not been

saga,” Mediaeval Studies 9 (1947): 131–40, repr. in Nine Norse Studies (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 1972), pp. 102–18. This fact hints at the complicated textual connections between Norway and Iceland. The Old Icelandic Homily Book and the Old Norwegian Homily Book contain eleven items in common. The Old Norwegian Homily Book (composed in Bergen) is presumed to be older, but it is impossible to say that it is the source of the Old Icelandic Homily Book. Both are probably copies or expansions of lost exemplars. The fact that many of the passages in the homilies also appear in Maríu saga further complicates the matter. And again neither homily is likely to be a source for the saga, especially since the saga has longer and more detailed passages than either homily. On this see Turville-Petre, “The Old Norse Homoly,” p. 137, and Hall, “Old Norse-Icelandic Sermons,” p. 692.

100

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

found, many men think that she has been raised up both in soul and body. Her body was buried in that dale which is called the Valley of Josaphat. A glorious church was made there in her honor. But now the tomb is found empty. Her soul was taken up over all the angels, and all the angels and all the saints kneeled to her. Father Jerome says clearly that she died and was buried, and he says that he does not know whether her body was resurrected a little while after her death or if God hid her body so that sinful men could not see it.)37

The Icelandic homilist here combines and then translates and paraphrases different sections of Radbertus’s Cogitis me.38 This is the first mention of the authority of Jerome, though the Icelandic writer has used several passages from the letter before this warning against certain belief in the bodily Assumption. It is possible he was unaware that the other material was from the same letter and that his source material was adapted from the letter into a particular lesson, probably a liturgical one, on the Assumption. Despite his reticence concerning the Virgin’s dual Assumption, the Icelandic cleric promotes the “hotíþ upnumningar” (Feast of the Assumption) as an important celebration for both God and the angels in heaven and the faithful on earth. The cleric calls on his fellow religious to imitate Mary’s moral behavior, her eagerness to learn, her humility, her moderation in all things, and above all else, to remember to call on her compassion and intercessory powers. For the homilist, this is the day that the faithful are reminded that Mary is next to her son in heaven, whether that is in body or not. He is unwilling, or uncomfortable, in claiming a bodily resurrection for Mary, even though by the time this copy was written in the Stockholm manuscript at the beginning of the thirteenth century,

37 3v17–4r1. 38 On the appearance of angels at the deaths of the saints, see Ripberger, De Assvmptione Sanctae Mariae Virginis, p. 130: “Legimus ergo quam saepe ad funera et ad sepulturas quorumlibet sanctorum angelos aduenisse, et ad exequias eorum obsequia praestitisse: necnon et animas electorum usque ad caelos cum hymnis et laudibus detulisse: ubi et utriusque sexus chori commemorantur, frequenter auditi, laudes cecinisse: interea, et quod perspicacius est, multo nonnumquam lumine eosdem resplenduisse; insuper et adhuc uiuentes in carne ibidem miri odoris fragrantiam diutius persensisse,” and a few lines later the commandment: “Alias autem quomodo impleuisse creditor quod in lege ipse praecipit: Honora, inquit, patrem tuum et matrum tuam?” On the empty tomb in the Valley of Josaphat, see Ripberger, De Assvmptione Sanctae Mariae Virginis, p. 112: “Monstratur autem sepulcrum eius cernentibus nobus usque ad praesens in uallis Iosaphat medio, quae uallis est inter montem Sion et montem Oliueti posita, quam et tu, o Paula, oculis aspexisti, ubi in eius honore fabricate est ecclesia miro lapideo tabulate, in qua sepulta fuisse, ut scire potestis ab omnibus, ibidem praedicatur; sed nunc uacuum esse cernentibus ostenditur.”

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

101

the scholastic argument of Pseudo-Augustine and the vision of Elisabeth of Schönau were both circulating among contemporaries in Europe. Each of the complete copies of Maríu saga contains a commentary on the death of the Virgin Mary, her funeral, and the possibility of her bodily Assumption.39 Because this commentary is based on the same source(s), though much expanded, underlying the Assumptio sancte Marie homily in The Old Icelandic Homily Book it also expresses caution concerning belief in a bodily Assumption for the Virgin Mary. The AM 232 fol. copy of Maríu saga confronts the ambiguity surrounding Mary’s death from 64r1 to 66v8. Here, as in other copies, the saga addresses the death of the Virgin Mary, the Assumption of Mary’s soul into heaven, the fate of the souls and bodies of the righteous after death, and the Last Judgment.40 The Virgin Mary’s death is first mentioned in AM 232 fol. at the end of chapter 19’s recounting of the Crucifixion.41 As in other manuscripts of Maríu saga, AM 232 fol. maintains that “En er Maria hafðe niu vetr lifað eptir pisl drottens at flestra manna sognn . . . þa kom sialfr drottens Ihesus Cristr ok bavð henni til eilifs fagnaðr ihiminrikis dýrð” (when Mary had lived nine years after the Crucifixion, according to the accounts of many . . . then the lord Jesus Christ came himself and invited her to eternal joy in the glory of heaven).42 The actual circumstances of Mary’s death are revealed in the next chapter, “vm andlat uarrar fru sancte marie” (on the death of our lady St. Mary).43 The Maríu saga description of the death of the Virgin Mary is characterized by a desire to defer to the auctoritas of Jerome, Solomon, and other unnamed prophets and by a series of digressions which allow the compiler to confront theological complexities and explain liturgical practice. These explanatory digressions are also copied in AM 232 fol. As in the other copies of Maríu saga, when the Virgin Mary is near death, the apostles are all miraculously transported to Jerusalem to be by her side: En a þeim dege er en dýra drottneng himins ok iarðar. en sæla Maria . guðs getara andaðez þa voro við stadder allir guðs postolar . ok segia sva froðir kennefeðr at hvar sem hvergi þeira var aðr staðr . þa var hann þaðan vppnumen með engelegum fvlltinge . ok setr þar niðr sem en sæla Maria andaðez.

39 The chapters on these subjects are also the only sections of Maríu saga found in AM 235 fol. and Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I. 40 What Mary’s death signifies for the fate of the souls and bodies of the righteous after death and for the Last Judgment will be discussed in the next and final chapter. 41 This chapter is found under the title “capitulum” from 63va8–63vb35 (the end of the column). 42 63vb31–63vb32 and 63vb33–63vb35. 43 The heading is at 63vb35, but the chapter begins at 64ra1.

102

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

(On that day when the glorious queen of heaven and earth, the blessed Mary, the mother of God died all of God’s apostles were present. A wise cleric says that each of them were not then where they had been before. Each was taken up through the assistance of the angels and set down there where the blessed Mary would die.)44

This is a detail that the saga and the Transitus text share, and it is an idea that was made popular by the various Transitus legends. The saga’s source for the apostles’ presence at Mary’s deathbed is likely the letter Cogitis me of Paschasius Radbertus, and thus one of the “froðir kennefeðr” cited here is probably Jerome.45 The original author of the saga must have anticipated some doubt for such a claim and thus reminds readers that scripture has already shown that this is possible through Habakkuk’s miraculous journey to Daniel.46 The compiler of Maríu saga clearly faced a dilemma in addressing the Virgin Mary’s death. Her death was overlooked in the Bible and thus quickly became a subject that accumulated an ever-growing body of speculative treatises that imagined how her death occurred, the magnificence of the funeral procession, and what her death might mean for Christian doctrine. The compiler alludes to this predicament early in the commentary on the Virgin Mary’s death, again deferring to Jerome: “ok erv margar frasagnir sem segir en sæli Jeronimvs prestr vm þenna atbvrð” (there are many accounts of this event, as the blessed priest Jerome says).47 After establishing the presence of the apostles at Mary’s deathbed and acknowledging the “margar frasagnir,” the rest of chapter 20 in AM 232 fol. (“vm andlat uarrar fru sancte marie”) describes the spectacular nature of the Virgin Mary’s funeral procession and locates the placement of her tomb in the Valley of Josaphat. The compiler of Maríu saga first explains that it is entirely reasonable to imagine that the Virgin Mary’s funeral procession was more solemn than those enjoyed by other saints – the similarity to the assumptio sancte Marie and thus the Cogitis me of Paschasius Radbertus is readily apparent: Þat finz opt isogum heilagra manna . at englar guðs koma ok vitraz iandlate þeira með liose . eða þeir er hia standa kena himneskan ilm . eða heyra fagran sóng . En ef drotten Iesus Cristr veitir opt mikla dýrð iandlate þræla sinna eða þíona . þa megum ver at likendum marka þaðan af hversso mikla dýrð hann mvnde veita iandlate moðvr sinnar, er

44 64ra1–64ra7. 45 Jerome is cited by name at 64ra21. 46 Daniel 14:31–35. Habakkuk’s miraculous journey to the imprisoned Daniel is told from 64ra7 to 64ra20. 47 AM 232 fol. 64ra20–64ra21.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

103

drottning er allra heilagra . eða ella hefðe hann eigi hallden log sinn . sialfr þav er han bavð hverivm manne at vegsama feður sin ok moðvr (It is found often in the sagas of saints, that the angels of God come and appear to them with light at their deaths. Those who stand near often perceive a heavenly fragrance, or hear beautiful songs. And if the lord Jesus Christ often offers this much glory to his thralls and servants at their deaths, then we must mark it to be expected how much glory he must show at his mother’s death, who is queen of all the saints. Or else he would not have heeded his own law in which he commanded all to honor their father and mother.)48

Because Jesus would not break his own commandment, the compiler of the saga is certain that Mary’s soul was greeted by her son himself, who brought with him the glory of heaven and an indescribable fragrance (“drotten sialfr Ihesus Cristr for imote önd moðvr sinnar með allre himna dýrð ok ovmræðelegvm ilm).49 The compiler is also in no doubt that “önd hennar var vpphafeð ýfir oll engla fýlki . ok lvta aller englar henne . ok all heilgir menn ahimne” (her soul was assumed above all the angels, and all the angels and all the saints bowed to her in heaven).50 In following Jerome (the Cogitis me of Radbertus) the saga-author exercises caution, just as the homilist who composed the assumptio sancte Marie in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15 had, when it comes to what has happened to the Virgin Mary’s body. According to the compiler of the saga, “likame sælar . Marie . var iarðaðr idal þeim er heitir vallis Josaphat ok var siðan dýrleg kirkia gíor henne til dýrðar . En nv er gróf henna tom fvnde” (the body of blessed Mary was buried in that valley which is called Josaphat, and afterward a glorious church was built there in her honor. Now her grave has been found empty).51 While the author of the homily assumptio sancte Marie attempts to immediately clear up the ambiguity surrounding Mary’s missing body, the compiler of Maríu saga instead shifts into a discussion of where the Valley of Josaphat is, why it is important for the Last Judgment, and what his audience can expect from death and the Final Judgment. The commentary on the Valley of Josaphat and the Last Judgment is a lengthy one, occupying 64rb29–65rb31 in AM 232 fol., and thus the reading or listening audience must wait to hear why the Virgin Mary’s tomb in the Valley of Josaphat has been found empty.

48 64rb8–64rb18. The law the compiler refers to here is presumably that of Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16. See also Matthew 15:4 and 19:19. 49 64rb19–64rb21. Notice, again, the similarity to the homily on the Assumption from the Icelandic Homily Book. 50 64rb24–64rb26. 51 64rb26–64rb29.

104

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

In AM 232 fol. the discussion concerning Mary’s missing body is resumed at 65rb31 at the beginning of the final chapter, “af grof varrar fru” (on the grave of our lady). The saga’s arguments about Mary’s body are clearly based on the Cogitis me and the same source as the homily in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15, though the saga’s treatment of the matter is more expansive than the homily’s. The compiler of the saga suggests: En firir því at grof hinnar drottningar Marie er tom ok likame hennar fanz eigi . þa hyggia menn at hon hafe af davða risit ok siti nv ihasæti með syni sinvm ýfir ollvm engla fýlkium með ond ok likama. En þar kveðr Jeronimvs prestr skýrt á at hon andaðez ok var iorðvt . En hann seiger vist hvart helldr var . at hon tok vpprissv likama sins litlo eftir andlat sitt . eða væri folgenn likame hennar til þess at sýndgir menn næðe er at sia ne hondla. (Because the grave of queen Mary is empty and her body has not been found, many believe that she has risen from death and sits now on the high throne with her son over all the angels in both soul and body. About this the cleric Jerome states clearly that she died and was buried, and he argues that he does not know whether her body was assumed a little while after her death or if her body was hidden so that the sinful could not see or handle it.)52

The saga also offers one other cause for speculation about a bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary, but in order to explain it, the compiler interrupts the narrative again to provide his audience with the explication of Canticles 6:9 and the liturgy for the Feast of the Assumption.53 The final cause for speculation, according to the saga compiler, results directly from reading Solomon’s “valet sem sol” (electa vt sol) as applying to the Virgin Mary. Since the bodies and souls of the righteous, like Mary’s, are characterized by their brightness after the Last Judgment,54 “flestra manna eða allra trua nalega, at drottneng allra lvta hafe af davða risit ok siti með allri prýði andar ok likama myklu meiri en likamleg ostýreð megi (megi)55 eptir hyggia eða ætlan akoma” (many, or nearly all, prefer to believe that Mary, queen of all things, has risen from death in body and soul and now sits in heaven in complete magnificence rather than to consider that any bodily infirmity might have come to her).56

52 65rb31–65va4. 53 Canticles 6:9: Que est ista, que ascendit sicut aurora consurgens, pulchra vt luna, electa vt sol, terribilis vt castrorum acies ordinata. 54 See the next chapter. 55 “megi” is copied twice in error. 56 AM 232 fol. 66ra35–66rb4. This resembles the arguments made in Pseudo-Augustine’s Liber de assumptione Beatae Mariae where the author argues that it would not be right for the vessel that carried Christ to suffer bodily decay and become food for worms.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

105

The compiler of the saga, like the author of the homily in the Icelandic Homily Book and Paschasius Radbertus, is hesitant to confirm a bodily Assumption for the Virgin Mary even though he understands why many have concluded that it is not only possible, but also just that she should be assumed in both body and soul. Ultimately, the saga suggests that Mary died, was buried, and (according the authority of Jerome – again, Paschasius Radbertus’s Cogitis me) her body either ascended sometime after her death or was hidden from mankind. Whatever the truth may be, the saga insists it is better not to speculate. While there is agreement on many details between the two texts, the commentary on the Virgin’s death and Assumption in the AM 232 fol. copy of Maríu saga is directly contradicted by the translation of the Transitus Mariae inserted at folios 84r–85v because it supports full acceptance of an Assumption in both soul and body. The Transitus text recounts how the Archangel Gabriel comes to Mary again after the Crucifixion to announce the approaching hour of her death and present her with the palm of victory after her son had promised her this would happen. All of the apostles, except Thomas “tortryggr” (the doubtful), are miraculously transported on clouds to Joseph of Arimathea’s house and witness Mary’s death. The present apostles bury her, and her son comes to retrieve her body in blinding light with a host of archangels, angels, and saints; the Apostle Thomas, arriving late from preaching in India, witnesses her bodily ascension to heaven and receives the girdle she wore when she was buried as proof for the other apostles, who initially doubt Thomas’s claim that her body is not where they think it is. The Old Norse translation of the Transitus Mariae supposedly recorded by Joseph of Arimathea concludes by stressing the value of copying, reading, hearing, and owning this text because doing so can ward off lunacy, disease, and other potential problems. The Transitus Mariae is distinguished by the tender dialogue between mother and son and the son’s desire to honor his mother. Near the beginning of the translation, Jesus eases his mother’s anxiety by promising his own intervention at the end of her life: Ok þar efter þa sier minn eingil gabriel . komanda til þin með þann palma sem eg mun senda þier af himinriki. skaltþu vist vita ath eg koma skulande með minum lærisueinum. einglum. haufud einglum ok með himinrikis krauptum . ok þann same gabriel eingill mvn þier kungiora nær þin aund mun vt ganga af þinvm likama. ok eg mun þa koma med flockum eingla ok haufudeingla ok meyia ok flytia þina ond ok likama til himinrikis huar huorki er hrygd ne sorg. (After you see my angel Gabriel coming to you with that palm from heaven, which I will send with him for you, you will know with certainty that I am coming with my disciples, angles, archangels, and with the might of heaven. That same angel Gabriel will reveal

106

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

to you when it is time for your soul to leave your body. I will then come with my flock of angels, archangels, and virgins and escort your soul and body to heaven where there is neither grief nor sorrow.)57

Though her son has promised her that he will “flytia” (convey) her soul and body to heaven, Mary responds to the apostles’ inquiries only that “j dag mvn min sal skiliazt vid min likama” (today my soul will depart from my body).58 Mary’s omission obviously causes confusion among the apostles later in Joseph of Arimathea’s purported eyewitness account of her death and funeral. The description of Mary’s funeral and burial presented by Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea’s Transitus corresponds, mostly, to what is found in Maríu saga. When Mary’s soul departs her body, all of the earth shakes and is illuminated with light from heaven; all who are standing near her body smell the sweetest fragrance and hear the most beautiful singing of angels (“ok þa skalf oll jordin ok lystizt með micille birte . j tilkaumv drottins vors Jesu Christi . en aller næruerande kendu enn sæta/azta jlm . ok heyrdu eingla fagurt lofsygiandu”).59 The apostles personally bury her body in a tomb in the Valley of Josaphat: “en postolarner toku likama ok fluttu j dal josaphat . ok þeir sialfer setto nidr hennar likama með miclum fagnade ok virdingu gratande ok syngiande af micille ast ok sætleik” (the apostles took her body and carried it to the Valley of Josaphat. They themselves buried her body with much joy and honor, weeping and singing out of great love and sweetness);60 that the apostles themselves interred Mary’s body will become significant when Thomas tells them that he saw her body traveling to heaven. It is in the recounting of events after the burial of Mary in the Valley of Josaphat where Maríu saga and the Transitus Mariae translation begin to diverge. While Maríu saga does acknowledge that Mary’s body is missing, it recommends caution in speculating about what might have happened to the Virgin’s earthly remains. The Transitus translation, however, invites its audience to imagine the transit of Mary’s body to heaven immediately after she is buried. As the apostles are singing hymns at her graveside, “þa kom yfer þa lios af himinriki . ok heilagr likame guðs moðr marie var vpp numenn til himna” (then the light of heaven appeared over them, and the holy body of God’s mother Mary was assumed to heaven).61 The apostles who buried her are apparently unaware of this light and that Mary’s body has been removed from the tomb, but Thomas, who had been

57 84ra27–84ra37. 58 84va16–84va17. 59 84va27–84a31. 60 84vb42–85ra3. 61 85ra3–85ra5.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

107

doubtful about Jesus’s resurrection and required tangible evidence, is granted sight of her body being conveyed to heaven and accepts her girdle as proof of her dual Assumption to correct his skeptical brethren. Thomas’s fellow apostles react angrily towards him at first, but agree to travel to the tomb and look inside. All that is found in the tomb is “himnamiole” (manna from heaven). Thomas then relates to the other apostles what he has seen and shows them the girdle, which they recognize as the very same garment they wrapped around Mary’s body.62 The translation of Pseudo-Joseph of Arimathea’s Transitus Mariae is a close rendering of the Latin. Based on the incorporation of verses from Psalms, the Gospels, and Canticles, it is likely that this text may have been composed for liturgical use. The Icelandic translator has preserved these verses in Latin and then calls attention to their being translated into Old Norse-Icelandic in formulaic terms. When, for example, Gabriel arrives in Jerusalem to deliver the palm of heaven, he greets Mary as he did when he announced the incarnation: “Aue maria gracia plena dominus tecum.”63 These lines are translated for the Icelandic audience and introduced by the phrase “huat sua norænazt Heil maria full með nad . drottin er með þier” (what in Norse is “Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you”).64 Mary’s response is also given: “Hon suarade . deo gracias . þat norænazt sua . lof ok dyrd heldr ok æra vegur ok virding se almattigum gudi” (she answered: Deo gracias. That in Norse is: more praise and glory and honor and esteem be to almighty God).65 When the Apostle John arrives in Jerusalem, the greeting is repeated but not translated; the translator must presume his audience will remember the required response.66 The Magnificat also appears in the text when Mary thanks God for the palm brought by Gabriel. The translator renders “Magnificat anima mea dominum” as “micklar ond mín drottinn” (my soul magnifies the lord).67 When Mary’s soul is conveyed to heaven, the angelic choir sings Canticles 2 (“sicut lilium inter spinas sic amica mea inter filias”) and the Icelandic audience is

62 Thomas’s late arrival, his reception of the girdle, and his interrogation by the other apostles is found from 85ra5 to 85va2. Manna (“himnamiole”) was also reportedly found in the tomb of the apostle John. This discovery is incorporated into multiple manuscripts of Jóns saga postula and Tveggja postula saga Jóns ok Jakobs, including the fragment in AM 656 I 4to, which also contains a fragment of Maríu saga. 63 Luke 1:28. 64 84rb4–84rb6. 65 84rb6–84rb9. 66 All the other apostles greet Mary with the same phrase after their arrival; it is again not translated. 67 Luke 1:46. 84rb12–84rb13.

108

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

reminded of the translation of the verse: “huad sua norænazt . suo sem lilia jmillum þyrna . suo er min vnnasta millum dætra jerusalems” (just as a lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters of Jerusalem).68 Psalm 132:1, from the Canticum graduum, is also recited in the Transitus translation. After Thomas has informed the other apostles about what he has seen and harmony is restored among them, Thomas sings: “Ecce quam bonum et quam jocundum habitare fratres in vnum,” which the translators note “huad sua norænaz . siait bredr huad gott er ok skemtiligt ath byggia jeinum huga” (which is in Norse, see brothers how good and pleasant it is to dwell in one mind).69 The Gradual Psalms, as I pointed out in chapter 3, form the basis of a number of explanatory sections in Maríu saga because the compiler assumed responsibility for revealing the mysteries of the liturgy. The translator of the Transitus also translates each verse, perhaps presuming that not all of the audience would be well-versed in Latin. The inclusion of these liturgical verses in the translation of the Transitus Mariae and that text’s insertion into AM 232 fol. suggest that it increased the liturgical flexibility of the manuscript and also granted permission to its users to imagine a dual Assumption for the Virgin Mary when they celebrated the feast on August 15. The translation of the Transitus Mariae A, as I mentioned, is unique to AM 232 fol. It is likely, however, that this text or some version of the Transitus circulated in Latin or Old Norse copies before these two leaves were inserted into the manuscript. The saga, as I have already noted, reveals an awareness of the Transitus. The saga is thus willing to rely on some of the details of the apocryphal account, but not on its claim of a bodily Assumption. A later reader (or community), however, clearly accepted all the details of this legend, and added it to AM 232 fol. The provenance of the manuscript could provide some clues as to how the Old Norse-Icelandic translation of the Transitus Mariae came to be sewn into the codex. AM 232 fol. can be connected to a group of monasteries in the northern diocese of Hólar70 all interested in promoting belief in and sharing legends about the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption to heaven.

68 84va31–84va34. 69 85rb26–85rb29. 70 The episcopal see at Hólar was established in 1106; St. Jón Ögmundsson was appointed as the first bishop. Under the jurisdiction of Hólar were, among others, two houses of Benedictine monks, one convent of Benedictine nuns, and two houses of Augustinian Friars: Þingeyrar (est. 1133), Munkaþverá (est. 1155), Reynistaður (est. 1295), Saurbær (est. ca. 1200), and Möðruvellir (est. 1296).

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

109

The presence of a list of the debts (Skuldareikningr) of Jón Ketilsson, attendant to the Bishop of Hólar Jón Vilhjálmsson Craxton (d. 1440), at the end of Barlaams saga ok Jósaphat in AM 232 fol. suggests that the manuscript was at the scriptorium at Hólar during the tenure of the bishop in the first half of the fifteenth century.71 As Dario Bullitta notes, sixteenth-century signatures in the manuscript from Benedikt ríki Halldórsson (1534–1604) and Halldór Benediktsson (1510–1582) reveal that the manuscript had once been at Möðruvellir, a house of Augustinian canons founded in 1296 on August 16 (one day after the Feast of the Assumption).72 The manuscript can also be connected to the Benedictine monastery of Munkaþverá in the north of Iceland (Eyjafjörður). Sveinn Torfason (ca. 1662–1725), proprietor of the abbey, told Árni Magnússon that he found the manuscript in one of the lockers of the monastery, and the manuscript was once owned by the magistrate of the district, Björn Magnússon (1626–1697).73 There is only one other extant medieval Icelandic text which argued for belief in a bodily Assumption, this is a translation of Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visio de resurrectione beate virginis Marie. The vision’s transmission to Iceland, and most of the extant manuscript copies of the translation of the vision, can be localized to the northern diocese of Hólar and the monasteries along Eyjafjörður and Skagafjörður. According to the Guðmundar saga C of Bergr Sokkason and Guðmundar saga D of Arngrímr Brandsson Elisabeth’s Visio de resurrectione beate birginis Marie and celebration of a bodily Assumption arrived in Iceland as a result of Guðmundr Arason’s (d. 1237) early adoption of the belief and subsequent

71 See Bullitta, “The Tuscan Provenance,” p. 8 (this page number refers to the pagination of a pre-print document). 72 See Bullitta, “The Tuscan provenance,” p. 9. The monastery at Möðruvellir was in northern Iceland next to Eyjafjörður and thus also Munkaþverá. 73 The manuscript later passed to Guðbrandur Björnsson (1657–1733), then Sveinn Torfason, then Magnús Jónsson from Leirá (1679–1702), rector of Skálholt, who eventually gave it to Árni Magnússon in 1689. Dario Bullitta suggests the following for the history of the manuscript: “In the years immediately following 1440, that is after Craxton’s death, AM 232 fol. must have been in the Hólar scriptorium where the Skuldareikningr was included. In following decades, the codex might have been brought to Möðruvellir by one of the later bishops of Hólar, most evidently because the regular Canons cultivated a specific interest on Marian miracles and Assumption texts on account of the dedication of their Church, which fell on August 16, the day following the Solemnity of the Ascension of the Virgin. At Möðruvellir the parchment of AM 232 fol. appears to have been read, scribbled, and signed several times. Subsequently, in the second half of the sixteenth century and after the Reformation, the volume might have been deposited at Munkaþverá by one of the ancestors of its seventeenth-century proprietor Björn Magnússon (1626–1697). At Munkaþverá, the leaves of AM 232 fol. seem to have remained unread and nearly forgotten in one of the lockers of the monastery for over a century.” Bullitta, “The Tuscan Provenance,” p. 30.

110

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

investigation into the matter.74 Guðmundr was Bishop of Hólar from 1203 until his death in 1237 and Bergr and Arngrímr were actively engaged in soliciting canonization for Guðmundr’s cult in the early fourteenth century. Bergr and Arngrímr both incorporate an abridged translation of Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visio de resurrectione Beate Virginis Marie into their sagas of Guðmundr.75 Their commentary on the transmission of Elisabeth’s Visio suggests that the short text was also used, like the Transitus Mariae in AM 232 fol., to supplement the readings for the Feast of the Assumption.76 Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visio is also incorporated into AM 764 4to (1376–1386), a world chronicle written either by or for the Benedictine nuns at Reynistaður í Skagafirði,77 and a few manuscripts of Maríu saga.78 The Visio is preserved partially in the Maríu saga fragments AM 240 IV fol. (ca. 1325–1375)

74 For a discussion of the Virgin Mary’s importance for Guðmundr, see Marlene Ciklamini, “Hidden and Revealed: The Manifest Presence of the Virgin Mary in Bishop Guðmundr’s Life,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 40.1 (2006): 223–62. Guðmundr’s interest in the Assumption is discussed at pp. 251–56. 75 Arngrímr adds a commentary to his revision, based on the Speculum historiale, that is absent in Bergr’s saga. Arngrímr’s redaction of the vision of Elisabeth of Schönau is edited in Jón Sígurðsson and Guðbrandur Vigfússon, eds., Biskupa Sögur (Kaupmannahöfn: Í Prentsmiðju S.L. Möllers, 1858), pp. 151–55. 76 Both Bergr and Arngrímr’s redactions of Guðmundar saga note: “Nú þeir sem sýngja þetta festum, segir klerkrinn, er skrifar til herra Guðmundar biskups, hafa þetta letr fyrir lectiones í ottusöng, sem hér er norrænat” (Now they who sing this festival, said the clerk who wrote concerning this to Guðmund, have that letter for the lection at matins, which is here translated into Norse). Jón Sígurðsson and Guðbrandur Vigfússon, eds. Biskupa Sögur, p. 154. 77 This redaction is edited in Ole Widding and Hans Bekker-Nielsen, “Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visions in an Old Icelandic Manuscript, AM 764, 4°,” Opuscula 2.1, Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25.1 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1961): 93–96. The manuscript has been thoroughly examined in a series of studies by Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir: “Dómsdagslýsing í AM 764 4to”; Universal History in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Studies in AM 764 4to.; “Writing Universal History in Ultima Thule: The case of AM 764 4°,” Mediaeval Scandinavia 14 (2004): 185–94; “The World and Its Ages: The Organisation of an ‘Encyclopaedic’ Narrative in MS AM 764 4to,” in Sagas, Saints and Settlements, ed. Gareth Williams and Paul Bibire (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 1–12; “Arctic Garden of Delights: The Purpose of the Book of Reynistaður,” in Romance and Love in Late Medieval and Early Modern Iceland, pp. 279–301; “The Resourceful Scribe: Some Aspects of the Development of Reynistaðarbók (AM 764 4to),” in Tradition and the Individual Talent: Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, ed. Slavica Rankovic et al. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies, 2012), pp. 325–42; “Reading Fit for Nuns? The Convent of Reynistaður and Icelandic Literary Milieu in the Fourteenth Century,” in Nuns’ Literacies in Medieval Europe: The Kansas City Dialogue, ed. Virginia Blanton, Veronica O’Mara, and Patricia Stoop (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), pp. 229–48. 78 Miracle CL in Unger, Maríu saga, pp. 915–17.

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

111

and AM 240 IX fol. (ca. 1350–1399)79 and wholly in the Maríu saga manuscripts AM 634/635 4to (ca. 1700–1725) and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (ca. 1450–1500).80 The hand of AM 240 IV fol. is also found in Codex Wormianus (AM 242 fol.) and the copy of Stjórn preserved in AM 227 fol., suggesting that AM 240 IV fol. also belongs to the scriptorium of the Benedictine monastery Þingeyrar in northwestern Iceland.81 AM 240 IX fol. is possibly connected to Helgafell,82 but two of the leaves were wrapped around a book owned by Björn Jónsson (1575–1655) of Skarðsá (in the same district as Reynistaður) before Árni Magnússon acquired them.83 AM 634/635 4to was copied by Eyjólfur Björnsson (1666–1746) from a now lost medieval exemplar. Árni Magnússon’s notes in AM 435 a 4to84 may reveal two possible candidates: a manuscript from “Hruna kirkiu i Hreppum” (southern Iceland) similar to AM 232 fol. but with “miracula miklu fleire” (many more miracles) given to Árni by the priest Þorlákur Grímsson (1659–1745),85 or, the likelier of the two, the “Mariu Saga in 4to” acquired from Valþjófsstaðir í Flótsdal (northeastern Iceland) in 1705.86 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, as I pointed out in chapter 1, can be reasonably associated with the convent at Reynistaður. Despite the fact that the copy of Maríu saga in this manuscript maintains skepticism towards a bodily Assumption (as do all copies of the saga itself), the author of the prologue is certain that Mary is now “upp hafin af holldzins daudleik til eilifdar” (resurrected from death of the flesh to eternal life).87 The manuscript evidence for the Visio of Elisabeth of Schönau thus reveals a cultural milieu among the monasteries, and one convent, of northern Iceland which fully accepted and celebrated the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary. AM 232 fol. and its texts considering the Assumption is also a crucial witness to

79 Only three leaves survive of AM 240 IV fol. The end of Elisabeth’s Visio is recorded on what is now 1ra–1rb17. AM 240 IX fol. is now eleven leaves. The fragment contains part of the prologue as found in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1. The Visio de resurrectione Beate Virginis Marie is found on 11r–11v. Much of the text in AM 240 IX fol. is now illegible. 80 105–109 in AM 635 4to and 153ra10–153v16. 81 There are numerous studies on the manuscripts produced at Þingeyrar. For the most recent summary and reference to previous studies, see Drechsler, Making Manuscripts at Helgafell, p. 43 n. 16. 82 For the list of manuscripts associated with the monastery and reference to previous studies, see Drechsler, Making Manuscripts at Helgafell, pp. 2–3 n. 6. 83 https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM02-0240-IX. 84 AM 435 a 4to, 12. https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM04-0435-a. 85 Þorlákur Grímsson was educated at Hólar. 86 https://handrit.is/en/manuscript/view/da/AM04-0634. 87 1vb9–1vb10.

112

Chapter 4 The Bodily Assumption of Mary in AM 232 fol.

the devotional practice of this milieu. If the translation of the Transitus Mariae added to AM 232 fol. can be seen as a response to the saga’s hesitancy surrounding the Assumption, the same must be true of the inclusion of Elisabeth’s Visio in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 and the medieval exemplar used to copy AM 634/ 635 4to. The main difference between these manuscripts, though, is that the Transitus Mariae translation was added to AM 232 fol. later and thus we cannot know if those who copied the Transitus would have altered Maríu saga’s discussion of the subject had they written both texts at the same time. The manufacturers of Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 and the exemplar for AM 634/635 4to were apparently unwilling to alter the saga’s commentary on the Assumption and chose instead to reveal their personal support for a dual Assumption in soul and body through additional texts copied elsewhere into the manuscript. The example of AM 232 fol. highlights something overlooked in the nineteenth-century edition of the saga and the 1961 edition of the Old NorseIcelandic translation of the Transitus Mariae. Read separately, the fact that a later reader or scribe has inserted this text into AM 232 fol. to supply another opinion on an important theological subject is lost. The inserted text provides the direct commentary of a later user of the manuscript. It is a response to the original saga’s discussion of the ambiguity surrounding the Virgin Mary’s Assumption. For this later reader, that Mary was assumed in body is certain, and that reader or group of readers has thus inserted this text into the manuscript as the last word, the latest information, on the subject of the Virgin’s death and Assumption.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife in the Manuscripts of Maríu saga While the Transitus Mariae and the vision of Elisabeth of Schönau settled, at least for the majority of medieval thinkers, the mystery surrounding what happened to the Virgin Mary’s body after her death, the fate of the souls and bodies of the faithful and the damned after death remained a widely debated subject.1 Defining the particulars of the quattuor novissima, the Four Last Things (death, the Last Judgment, heaven, and hell) is and always has been a complicated endeavor. Many pressing questions about the end of time remained unanswered by John’s Apocalypse and other scriptural references in the thought of medieval Christians: Was heaven a material place inhabited by physical bodies? If so, what did those bodies look like and what were their attributes? Was heaven a city or an edenic garden, or both? What did it mean to be face to face with the divine? Would the faithful be reunited with loved ones in heaven and have the power of recognition? Would the blessed be clothed, or naked? Would there be plants and animals? Was hell to be a physical space of torment or a condition (a state of being)? Was it to be merely the absence of the divine? If hell was a physical place, what did it look like? What torments could the damned expect? Where and what was purgatory? What did it mean when the Gospel of Luke referred to the beggar being transmitted by angels into the bosom of Abraham? Were the refrigerium of Tertullian and bosom of Abraham the same, or different, places? What was signified by the third heaven mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12: 2–5? Where would the Last Judgment take place? Were the souls of the righteous and damned waiting for the Final Judgment or were they judged immediately after death? Gregory the Great had taught that the souls of the absolutely righteous passed straight to heaven after death and the wicked straight to hell. The somewhat good had to endure the process of purification.2 These conclusions led to the belief in an individual judgment and the Last Judgment.3 But if 1 Some sections of this chapter have been adapted from my article “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment” and my dissertation, Translating Marian Doctrine into the Vernacular. 2 For St. Gregory’s thoughts on death and judgment, see the Dialogues, bk. 4, especially chaps. 25, 28, and 37–45. 3 That a person would be subject to an immediate individual judgment after death and a general judgment at the end of time was defined in the fourteenth century (1336) in the Papal Constitution, Benedictus Deus, issued by Benedict XII. English translation here: https://www. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-006

114

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

each soul was judged immediately after death, was the Last Judgment necessary? How was it different? What happened to the bodies of those judged immediately after death? Jacques Le Goff, in his study of the development of the doctrine of purgatory, has observed that answers to these numerous questions usually spurred more questions, and consensus and a precise doctrinal system is difficult to identify: The Church’s attitude toward the dead at the beginning of the twelfth century, so far as we are able to tell from documents of clerical origin, was this: After the Last Judgment men will be grouped for all eternity into two classes, the saved and the damned. A man’s fate will be determined essentially by his behavior in life: faith and good works militate in favor of salvation, impiety and criminal sins consign the soul to Hell. About the period between death and resurrection Church doctrine had little of a precise nature to say. According to some writers, after death the deceased would await determination of their fate by the Last Judgment, either in the grave or in some dark but neutral region, such as the sheol of the Old Testament, which was not distinguished from the grave. Others, more numerous, believed that souls would reside in various dwelling places. Of these the most prominent was the bosom of Abraham, the abode of souls which, while waiting to be admitted to Heaven in the true sense of the word, bide their time in a place of refreshment and peace. Most believed – and this opinion seems to have been favored by ecclesiastical authorities – that a final decision was handed down immediately after death in the case of two categories: first, those who are entirely good, martyrs and saints, the fully righteous, who go to Heaven at once and enjoy the ultimate reward, the sight of God, the beatific vision; and second, those who are entirely bad, who go directly to Hell. Between the two there were one or two intermediate categories, depending on which authority we believe.4

The pursuit for answers to these questions engendered volumes of learned commentary, speculation, and popular visions of heaven and hell from the early years of Christianity to the church fathers, the scholastics of the High Middle Ages, and of course into the present. Scholarship on how the medieval church and the laity navigated these subjects is not lacking, but the abundance of medieval works addressing these questions is such that further exploration is still possible and necessary.5

papalencyclicals.net/ben12/b12bdeus.htm. Latin text on the Vatican site: https://w2.vatican. va/content/benedictus-xii/la/documents/constitutio-benedictus-deus-29-ian-1336.html. 4 Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 133. 5 Bart D. Ehrman’s newest book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife (published March 2020), for example, traces the history of many of these questions and their preservation in contemporary conceptions of the afterlife.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

115

The undisputed universality of death and the still unanswered questions surrounding the unknown unite past and present. The subject still calls to us because, despite advancement in thought (in particular on the study of brain death) and examination of varied traditions concerned with death and the afterlife, we want to know more about the hereafter. Humanity still yearns to know what awaits each of us after death, whether death is to be feared, to be celebrated and/or mourned (and to what extent), and how and when we should memorialize the departed. Scholars continue to engage with the traditions of a variety of cultures past and present because changing perspectives on death illuminate our own contradictions and preoccupations. In the introductory essay to the collection Death in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, Albrecht Classen highlights the difference to be observed in medieval Christian perspectives on death: Certainly, death was not something really to be feared, despite all its physical dreadfulness, but something to be looked for since it meant the end of the history of suffering here in this life. Ironically, we might even go so far as to identify Christian culture as one predicated on the experience of death since the soul had to be liberated from the body first before it could transition to heaven, or end up in hell in the worst case scenario, as countless theologians and preachers explicated throughout the entire time period.6

Indeed, for medieval theologians (including Icelandic ones), as the rest of this chapter will show, earthly life was to be occupied by the preparation for death and heavenly life.7 Rebecca F. McNamarra and Una McIlvenna have shown that this difference of perspective is to be found in many aspects: People in medieval and early modern Europe experienced death and dying differently from the way we do today: the dead formed a more significant social ‘presence’ for medieval and early modern Europeans, who typically experienced the deaths of family and community members in far greater numbers than their modern counterparts. Rituals of commemoration and remembrance were informed by changing institutional practices within the Church and the royal courts, and they also varied according to local customs. Conceptions of the body and the soul were different, too, influenced by current theological thinking and lay and learned medical practice. The way the dead were categorised varied – certain types of death were criminal or sinful, others were ‘good’ and noteworthy – and this affected

6 Albrecht Classen, “Death and the Culture of Death,” in Death in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Time: The Material and Spiritual Conditions of the Culture of Death, ed. Albrecht Classen (Berlin: De Grutyer, 2016), p. 31. 7 See Caroline Walker Bynum, “Death and Resurrection in the Middle Ages: Some Modern Implications,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 142.4 (December, 1982): 589: “dying was a process prepared for, even controlled and willed by the dying person.”

116

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

responses to the dead and their surviving families and communities. Emotions were also intrinsic to how people in medieval and early modern Europe prepared for death, said goodbye to loved ones, commemorated their dead, and meditated on life after death.8

Medieval perspectives on death were obviously not homogenous either. Conceptions of dying, judgment, and the afterlife abounded with contradictions, paradoxes, and were continuously changing.9 The paradoxes are illuminating and constitute one of the causes for study of medieval Christianity’s conceptualization of death, judgment, heaven, and hell (the Last Things).10 Despite the fact that scripture and theologians have regularly reminded audiences that the mysteries of heaven and hell are difficult to understand on earth – that they are in fact indescribable – a great deal of ink has been spilled on apocryphal and canonical journeys to or visions of paradise and the pits of hell as well as speculation on what humanity can expect at and after death and at the end of time. These journeys, visions, and speculations led, of course, to more questions and caused many theologians to urge the curious, as Franco Armanda has observed of the Franciscan preacher and Scholastic Bernardino of Siena (d. 1444), “hold your questions until you get to heaven. It is sufficient to know that we will be happy at the sight and possession of God.”11 Eschatological curiosity and specific questions concerning death, individual judgment, the Last Judgment, and afterlife are readily discoverable in Old Norse-Icelandic texts.12 There also appears to have been a relatively robust preChristian conception of Apocalypse and afterlife – the ódáinsakr (place of the

8 Rebecca F. McNamarra and Una McIlvenna, “Medieval and Early Modern Emotional Responses to Death and Dying,” Parergon 31.2, special issue: Medieval and Early Modern Emotional Responses to Death and Dying (2014): 1. 9 See, for example, the introduction to Caroline Walker Bynum and Paul Freedman, eds., Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), p. 6, where the editors identify a shift in the twelfth-century from a “death expected and prepared for, experienced in community,” to “personal death, an understanding of the moment of death as a decisive accounting for an individual self.” 10 The paradoxes are at the heart of Bynum’s monograph The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017 reprint). 11 Franco Mormando, “What Happens to Us When We Die? Bernardino of Siena on ‘The Last Four Things’,” in Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, p. 129. 12 The subject was, of course, also of interest to artists. Scenes from a Byzantine Last Judgment were etched in panels found at Bjarnastaðahlíð. The panels probably originated at Hólar. On these panels, see the last two chapters by Guðrún Harðardóttir and Þóra Kristjánsdóttir in The Nordic Apocalypse: Approaches to “Völuspá” and Nordic Days of Judgement, ed. Terry Gunnell and Annette Lassen (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) and Selma Jónsdóttir, An 11th Century Byzantine Last Judgment in Iceland (Reykjavík: Almenna Bókafélagið, 1959).

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

117

undead) and hel13– though in the form it has come down to us we must admit to the possibility that it has been reshaped by Christians, like Snorri Sturluson, who recorded the myths in parchment.14 No independent treatises on the quattuor novissima are extant in Old Norse-Icelandic and no manuscripts are entirely engaged with the subject; understanding of what medieval Icelanders believed and were taught by clerics – a systematized body of knowledge – about the Four Last Things is scattered across the medieval corpus in homilies,15 saints’ sagas, translated and native otherworldly journeys and visions,16 and other religious and learned works. Consistency is often elusive,17 and outright contradiction is not uncommon. Maríu saga, as I have written elsewhere18 and briefly mentioned in previous chapters, contains one of the more extensive commentaries on the quattuor

13 On the “ódáinsakr,” see Christian Carlsen, Visions of the Afterlife in Old Norse Literature (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2015), pp. 110–11. 14 The poem Völuspá is an important witness to the remnants of pre-Christian tradition. On this, see Terry Gunnell and Annette Lassen, eds., The Nordic Apocalypse. 15 See Christian Carlsen’s summary of the treatment of the Four Last Things in Icelandic homilies: “The format is that of a catalogue of abstracted qualities. Sensory impressions of hell and heaven, descriptions of topography and structure – features central to the afterlife visions examined in this book – are absent, and their contemplation thus not encouraged. Even though the theme of the hereafter is ever-present in the homily books, the writers behind the homilies are not interested in exploring and mapping out its nature. The homiletic descriptions echo the stock imagery presented in popular Latin treatises such as Honorius’s Elucidarius, one of the influential works translated into Old Norse in the latter half of the twelfth century . . . Despite the ever-present theme of the Apocalypse, the outlook regarding the prospect of salvation in the Old Norse homilies is in fact predominantly optimistic.” Carlsen, Visions of the Afterlife in Old Norse Literature, pp. 15–16. 16 The third-century Visio Pauli was known and translated in medieval Iceland (Páls leizla), as was the twelfth-century Visio Tnugdali (Duggals leizla). On Páls leizla, see Dario Bullitta’s recent edition and translation Páls leizla: The Vision of St. Paul (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2017). On Duggals leizla, see Peter Cahill, ed., Duggals leiðsla (Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, 1983). On these two texts and other translated Apocalypses, visions, and otherworldly journeys, see Jonas Wellendorf, Kristelig visionslitteratur i norrøn tradition (Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2009). The Leizla Rannveigar is the most well-known vision involving an Icelander. See Christian Carlsen, Visions of the Afterlife in Old Norse Literature. 17 David Ashurst has observed a similar problem in Old Norse-Icelandic depictions of paradise – earthly or otherwise. According to Ashurst, “the contradictions and uncertainties in the lore concerning Paradise . . . would no doubt have been a source of frustration to anyone in search of exact doctrinal correctness.” Ashurst, “Imagining Paradise,” in The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic Literature: Sagas and the British Isles. Preprint Papers of the 13th International Saga Conference, Durham and York, 6th–12th August 2006, ed. John McKinnell et al. (Durham, UK: The Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006), p. 78. 18 Najork, “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment in the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga.”

118

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

novissima in Old Norse-Icelandic literature.19 In the final chapters of the saga, in all complete copies, the compiler interrupts his account of the Virgin Mary’s death and Assumption, and interpretation of Canticles 6:9, to relate to his audience what Mary’s passing and the fate of her body promises for the faithful. The compiler also comments on where the Last Judgment will take place and enumerates the bodily and spiritual gifts granted to the glorified. The usefulness of the author’s commentary is manifested by the fact that it has been excerpted in Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I and the encyclopedic work Rímbegla. It is important to recognize, though, that in the manuscripts of Maríu saga other texts also engage with the quattuor novissima and close comparison – reading in manuscript context – further expands our understanding of what was being taught regarding the Last Things not only in general terms, but also in specific contexts.20 In AM 234 fol., for example, Páls saga postola II directly precedes Maríu saga in the manuscript and contains a detailed discussion of the third heaven,21 purgatory (hreinsanarstaðr), and hell (pyttr helvitis).22 Other sagas in the manuscript imagine the transit of saints to the afterlife and thus either can serve to confirm, or contradict, what the audiences hear and read in the two longer commentaries. In AM 233 a fol. and AM 235 fol., the saga of Martha and Mary Magdalen treats adjacent subjects through an explanation of the resurrection of Lazarus. AM 233 a fol. also preserves a fragment of Niðrstigningar saga, the Old Norse-Icelandic translation of the Descensus Christi ad infernos. Numerous other saints’ sagas and Marian miracles in the manuscripts of Maríu saga contain brief references to death and the transit of holy souls to the afterlife; these references and the

19 Of comparable length and breadth of subjects explained is a passage in the learned compilation Tveggja postola saga Jóns ok Jakobs and in the miscellany AM 764 4to. See Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, “Dómsdagslýsing í AM 764 4to” and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, Universal History in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Studies in AM 764 4to, pp. 206–17. 20 Most of the attention given to the Last Things is in the form of brief reminders that death and judgment will come to all, that Jesus was resurrected on the third day, and thus that that reward reveals the future all the faithful can expect. Such references are found, for example, in AM 656 I 4to in the lives of the Apostles Peter and Paul, John, Matthew; in AM 235 fol. in the sagas of John the Baptist, Sebastian, Mary of Egypt, Magnus of Orkney, Peter, Margaret, Óláfr Haraldsson, Laurence of Rome, and Dionysius; in Barlaams saga ok Josaphats and Jóns saga Baptista II in AM 232 fol. 21 For a brief summary of Jewish and early Christian conceptions of the number of heavens, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence, p. 35. 22 Part of this commentary is now, unfortunately, missing in AM 234 fol. due to the loss of a folio between the current folios 26 and 27. See Foote, Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga, pp. 11–12. The leaf was apparently lost sometime before the manuscript was sent back to Iceland in 1699.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

119

exegetical commentaries manifest the preoccupations of the patrons, scribes, and audiences of these manuscripts; they also necessitate reading in context. The commentary on the Four Last Things at the end of Maríu saga relies on book three of the Elucidarius of Honorius Augustodunensis, the Transitus Mariae, Pseudo-Jerome’s (Paschasius Radbertus’s) Cogitis me, and possibly on Pope Innocent III’s (1161–1216) sermon sabbato quator temporum on the Transfiguration of Jesus.23 The learned nature of the commentary suggests usage of other unnamed and unidentified sources is likely. The compiler makes it clear that the transformative process of death, the Last Judgment, the gifts associated with glorified bodies, and the bliss of heaven have come to his mind through his reflection on the Virgin Mary’s passing and on her body.24 In this way he provides both an explanation for the prolonged digression and, perhaps, an example of the kinds of subjects his audience should be contemplating when celebrating the Feast of the Assumption. His digression is also not insignificant for the doctrinal argument of the saga: Mary’s body is obviously more special than all other mortals, but the transformation her body undertakes is proof of the promise and the reversal highlighted by his exegesis on the incarnation earlier in the text. I pointed out in chapter 4 that the compiler of Maríu saga asks his audience to imagine the funeral celebration for the Virgin Mary via the claim that he has read often in saints’ sagas that “eínglar gvðs koma ok vitraz i andlati þeira með liose eða þeir er hia standa kenna hímneskan ilm . eða heyra fagran savng” (the angels of God appear at their deaths with great light and those who are nearby perceive a heavenly fragrance and hear fair song).25 If this is true of other saints, the compiler suggests, the glory given to Mary must have been far greater. This image, that the angels transmit the souls of saints to heaven in brightness, heavenly fragrance, and beautiful hymns, constitutes the most widespread and basic of references to death and the afterlife in the manuscripts of Maríu saga.26 The abundant repetition of this image signifies it as one stressed by the church and likely memorized by the laity.

23 PL 217, cols. 0375–0382. See Najork, “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment in the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga,” pp. 23–25. 24 Because I am interested in comparing the commentaries in Maríu saga and Páls saga postola II directly, the following general comments and text citations are to AM 234 fol. 25 AM 234 fol. 37vb33–37vb35. 26 The detail is repeated, for example, in the saga of St. Anthony and Vitae Patrum in AM 234 fol., and the lives of Laurence of Rome, Óláfr Haraldsson, Dionysius, Theodore, and Martin in AM 235 fol.

120

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

I have already discussed the compiler’s belief that Mary’s soul was assumed to heaven and admission that her tomb is empty, even though her body was buried in the Valley of Josaphat; it is this location near Jerusalem that prompts the author toward a commentary on the Last Things. Long tradition, ultimately traceable back to Joel 3:2 and 3:12, identifies the Valley of Josaphat as one of the possible places where God will conduct the Last Judgment.27 The valley “liggr amilli fiall tveggia . þeira er annað heitir Oliveti enn annað Syon” (lies between two mountains; one of them is called the Mount of Olives and the other Zion).28 The Mount of Olives, the compiler reminds, is where Jesus rose to heaven. This valley is also where, according to learned authorities (savgnn heilagra ritnínga), “at domrinn efzti” (at the Last Judgment) Jesus will be “vppi iloptinv” (up in the sky) to “dæmir vm alltt mankyn” (judge all humanity).29 Having located the place of the Last Judgment the compiler of Maríu saga then shifts to the more complicated subject of the reunification of soul and body and the properties of glorified bodies. The author’s argument is based on two related theological traditions: the Transfiguration of Christ and the dotes (dowries, gifts) of the resurrected body. The dotes tradition has its roots in Corinthians 15:42–54 and the theology of Augustine,30 but it was given new life by Anselm and Eadmer of Canterbury, who identified seven gifts of the spirit and seven of resurrected bodies;31 this schema of seven and seven was later adopted by Honorius in the Elucidarius. By the thirteenth century – after the interventions of Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus, among others – the list of dotes of glorified bodies was contracted to four: agilitas (referring to the speed of the glorified body), claritas (the clarity and beauty of the body), subtilitas (the subtlety/penetrability), and impassibilitas (exemption from pain and illness).32

27 On the location of the Last Judgment, see Thomas N. Hall, “Medieval Traditions about the Site of Judgment,” Essays in Medieval Studies 10 (1993): 79–97. 28 AM 234 fol. 38ra12–38ra14. 29 AM 234 fol. 38ra20–38ra23. 30 Caroline Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, p. 100. 31 See Anselm’s Proslogion, chap. 25; and Eadmer of Canterbury, Liber de beatitudine coelistis patriae, PL 159, cols. 587–606. 32 See Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, p. 132, pp. 246–47 and Alastair Minnis. From Eden to Eternity: Creations of Paradise in the Late Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), pp. 157–58. Bonaventure takes up the matter in his Breviloquium (part VII, chap. 4); Peter Lombard in distinctions 44 and 49 of book 4 of the Sentences; Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 86, and the Supplementum to the Summa Theologica, quaestiones 69–99; and Albertus Magnus in his commentary on the Sentences.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

121

According to Maríu saga, when “avndín hefvir tekit likamann þann sem hann bar her í heímí . þaa skolv goðra manna likamir taka ferfallda pryði fyr þvi at hverr maðr er skapaðr af fiorvm hofvtskepnvm elldi . lopti . vatni . iavrðv” (the soul has been reunited with the body it bore here on earth, then the bodies of the righteous will take on a fourfold magnificence because everyone is shaped from four elements – fire, air, water, and earth).33 Because of the four dowries (fiorar astgiafvar) granted by God glorified bodies will be “lettfær ok skiotr” (nimble and quick), “gagnfær eða smasmvgall” (penetrating or subtle); they will be “vij . lvtum biartari en sol en lifva an avllvm sivkleika ok rikia at eilifv með gvði” (seven times brighter than the sun and live in the absence of sickness and reign for eternity with God).34 To remove any doubt, the compiler of Maríu saga points out that Jesus displayed these future dowries in his earthly life.35 He revealed the “lettfæri likamans” (agility of the body) when he walked across water to the Apostle Peter. He revealed subtilitas when he passed through his mother’s body without breaking her virginity. The Apostle Thomas witnessed the impassibility of the resurrected body when he touched the wounds of Jesus. The brightness of the glorified body was manifested in the Transfiguration atop Mount Tabor when Jesus shone before Peter, James, and John. This additional digression – to explain, to clear up ambiguities, to ground these bodily dowries in episodes from the Bible – echoes the compiler’s efforts throughout the saga. He also offers a warning: while these gifts are made possible through the Virgin Mary’s humble acceptance of the incarnation and through Jesus’s sacrifice, they are only earned by those who are first “reinsaðr af avllvm syndvm” (cleansed from all sins).36 Next the compiler names the three dowries of the glorified soul. While the body was shaped with fire, air, water, and earth, the soul was made of different “efnni” (materials)37 because humanity was created in the image of the trinity and the likeness of God. The soul “tekr þrevallda pryði af gvðe . . . henne er

33 AM 234 fol. 38ra28–38ra32. 34 AM 234 fol. 38ra37–38ra38. “lettfær ok skiotr” corresponds to agilitas, “gagnfær eða smasmvgall” to subtilitas. The brightness of the glorified body corresponds to claritas. This brightness was thought to have been prophesized in Isaiah 30:26. The absence of sickness corresponds to impassibilitas. The treatment of the impassibility of glorified bodies is further amplified in Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11. 35 The following examples are found in AM 234 fol. 38rb8–38rb36. 36 AM 234 fol. 38rb16–38rb17. 37 AM 234 fol. 38ra34.

122

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

gefvin skynsemi fyse bræði” (takes a threefold magnificence from God . . . it is given reason, desire, and irascibility).38 One final dowry is claimed when the compiler expresses his relief that the glorified will have the power of recognition in the afterlife, just as Peter recognized Moses and Elijah atop Mount Tabor even though he had never seem them before. At the beginning of his commentary, the compiler of Maríu saga suggested that when God appears in the sky above the Valley of Josaphat to judge humanity his left hand tilts to the earth and his right towards heaven. He concludes his treatise on the Last Things with the theological significance of this image: Sva segir ok at goðir menn liði vpp ilopt fra þvi er gvð dæmir ok merkir þat iþvi at þeir allir er gvði verða til hægri handar aa alþyðv vpprisv degi . Elskvðv meir himneska lvti en iarðliga . Enn þeir er gvði erv til vinstri handar þaa erv niðri aa iorðv ok megv eigi komaz iloptið vpp þvi at þeir elskvðv iarðliga lutv . en hofnvðv himneskvm. (It has been said that the good glide into the heavens from where God sits in judgment. We should interpret it in this way, that all who come into God’s right hand at the resurrection loved heavenly things more than earthly. Those who are taken in God’s left hand are down on earth and are not able to reach heaven because they loved earthly things and forsook heaven.)39

The author of Maríu saga has saturated much of his commentary on the Last Things with the dowries won by the incarnation and then Crucifixion. Lest his audience assume their place, this conclusion to the treatise on the Last Judgment reminds them that the dowries must still be earned. They are the reward, he argues, for a life of humility, patience, repentance, and moderation. If his readers fail, he reassures, they can of course call on the “arnaðarorð” (intercession) of the Virgin Mary. The commentary on the Four Last Things in Maríu saga concerns itself with the joys of heaven and the transformative process of death and the resurrection. Purgatory – the place for purification – and the torments of hell are absent in the saga and in many manuscripts of the text; they are not absent in AM 234 fol., however, since Páls saga postola II supplies readers with the answers to additional questions about the third heaven, purgatory, and the pits of hell.

38 “skynsemi” (rationalis), “bræði” (irascibilis), and “fyse” (concupiscibilis). These three dowries are also listed in the Elucidarius, PL 172, col. 1158B and in Innocent III’s sermon XIV on the Transfiguration. See Najork, “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment in the Old NorseIcelandic Maríu saga,” p. 23. 39 AM 234 fol. 38vb27–38vb34.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

123

The compiler of Páls saga postola II begins his commentary40 on the places of the afterlife in order to explain 2 Corinthians 12:2–4,41 which he translates for his audience: Veit ek mann fyr xiiii. vetrum hafðan upp til hins þriðia himins ok sia þar leynda luti almattigs guðs; en guð veit, hvart hann var bæði með aund ok likama, eða var aundin ein saman, en þat veit ok eigi, segir postolinn, at sa enn sami maðr . . . var leiddr i paradis ok heyrði þar þau orð, er manni er eigi leyft at mæla her i veraulldu. (I know a man above fourteen years taken up to the third heaven who saw there the secret things of almighty God. And God knows, whether he was taken in both soul and body, or in soul alone; I don’t know that, says the apostle. That same man was brought into paradise where he heard secrets humankind is not permitted to speak here in this world.)42

The compiler of Páls saga postola II, sensing potential confusion, then presents an explication, based on the glosses of the church fathers, of what place is signified by Paul’s reference to “þriðia himins.” A “þriðia himins” is assumed to exist in the saga of St. Anthony in the same manuscript, and is attested in Barlaams saga ok Josaphats and the translation of Gregory’s Dialogues. None of these texts, however, inform their audiences what or where the third heaven is. The commentary in Páls saga postola II, then is unique in the corpus, and its knowledge, even if not intended to do so, supplements what the audience of AM 234 fol. can glean from Maríu saga. When Paul was caught up to the third heaven skilia þat sva helgir feðr, at honum væri þa synt himinriki, fyr þvi at þat er himinn kallaðr i helgum ritningum, sem Moyses vattar i upphafi sinnar bokar, þa er hann segir: ‘I upphafi skapaði guð himin ok iorð,’ ok segir at iorðin var auð ok onyt, en um himin segir hann ecki fra. (the holy fathers deduce that he was shown the kingdom of heaven, because that heaven is named in the scriptures, as Moses attests in the beginning of his books, when he says: ‘in the beginning God shaped heaven and earth.’ He says that the earth was desolate and spoiled, but he says nothing about heaven).43

40 Because this commentary is now missing in AM 234 fol., due to the loss of one folio, citations are to Unger, ed. Postola sögur. 41 “Scio hominem in Christo ante annos quatuordecim, sive in corpore nescio, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit, raptum hujusmodi usque ad tertium caelum. Et scio hujusmodi hominem sive in corpore, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit quoniam raptus est in paradisum: et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet homini loqui.” http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/54012.htm. 42 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 267. 43 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 268.

124

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

That place is full of angels and heavenly glory. It is called “empirium celum, en þat þyðiz elldligr himinn, eigi hita sakir helldr fyr birti sakir” (empirium celum, and that is translated fiery heaven, not because of heat but because of brightness).44 The compiler of the saga still has not accounted for why this place is called the third heaven, though. The first heaven is the sky (“loptið”), the second is the firmament – where we see the stars to be fixed (festingarhiminn, er ver siam himintungl a faust vera), and the third is above these two. Knowledge of Latin, the compiler shows, would make the distinction clear. “Celum” means “hulning” (hidden/covering).45 The third heaven, then, is hidden and covers the other two. In this third heaven Paul was shown the “leynda luti eilifrar sælu, þeirar er vera skal eptir domsdag” (secrets of eternal bliss, where we will be after Judgment Day).46 When Paul says that he was led “i paradisum,” the glosses reason that he “hafi syndir verit hvilldarstaðir, er rettlatra manna andir skolu hafa til domsdags” (has been shown the place of rest, where souls of the righteous will be until the Last Judgment). It is not entirely clear if the compiler is equating the third heaven with “hvilldarstaðir,” or if he is thinking of the refrigerium referred to by Tertullian or the bosom of Abraham.47 In any case, the compiler notes that there are two paradises. The first is the one that Adam lost. The second is this “hvilldarstaðr,” where the souls of the good have a second home until they are taken to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus identified this place in the Gospels when he said “hodie mecum eris in paradiso.”48 The “hvilldarstaðr” is the place Jesus brought righteous souls, Abraham’s among them, after his death and descent to hell. The author, perhaps revealing awareness of the Gospel of Nicodemus – translated into Old Norse-Icelandic as Niðrstigningar saga – observes that this place is also called “limbus inferni.” The compiler of Páls saga postola II began his commentary on the afterlife at the highest point – the third heaven – and has descended from there to arrive at the border of hell (“limbus inferni”). His audience has heard of the partitions of heaven and the home where the souls of the righteous rest in bliss until the Last Judgment, but, they have not yet heard about the various places in hell. One such place “i helviti heitir purgatorium, þat þyðiz hreinsanarstaðr”

44 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 268. 45 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 268. 46 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 268. 47 On the refrigerium and the bosom of Abraham, see Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, pp. 6, 46, and 133. The bosom of Abraham is referred to in the context of Lazarus and the wicked rich man in Luke 16:19–26. 48 Luke 23:43.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

125

(in hell is called purgatory, which translates to the place of purification).49 It is this place where souls requiring additional penance await judgment and are cleansed with “hreinsanarelldi” (purifying fire).50 The compiler tours his audience further down into hell until he arrives at the place called “puteus inferni” or the “pyttr helvitis” (pit of hell).51 The souls populating this place have committed cardinal sins, have separated themselves from God, and will never be able to escape that pit. Nothing in this commentary directly contradicts what the audience of AM 234 fol. would hear in Maríu saga, but as my analysis has revealed, it is all different. The manuscript does not provide its readers – clerical or lay – with guidance on how to reconcile these variant depictions of the Four Last Things. Maríu saga shows little interest in the places and torments of hell and has nothing to say about purgatory – a “hvilldarstaðr/refrigerium” – or the bosom of Abraham. The compiler of Maríu saga was either unaware of these traditions or found them to be unnecessary for his audience. The same could be said for the author of Páls saga postola II. He says nothing of glorified bodies or of the fact that Mary’s Assumption provides an example of the promised reward for the souls and bodies of the righteous. This should perhaps not surprise us; this lack of consistency and competition of ideas was not unique to Iceland and these two sagas were composed in different ages by different authors. But the lack of congruence is noticeable when these two texts from the same manuscript are read together. What then, did the clerics using this manuscript in their own devotion or in pastoral care make of the two commentaries on the Last Things? How did they use them? Did they relate some parts to the laity and omit others? Did both clerics and laity desire any knowledge, no matter how confusing, on a topic of such relevance to their lives and preparation for the next? In other manuscripts of Maríu saga we find either greater congruence between texts, or at least the absence of contradiction. The Tveggja postola saga Pétrs ok Páls preserves a description of earthly destruction, which is lacking elsewhere in Maríu saga manuscripts. The author of Tveggja postola saga Pétrs ok Páls also locates judgment near the Mount of Olives, as Maríu saga, which directly precedes the text in AM 656 I 4to, does. At the Last Judgment, the saga argues, “sol mun snuaz i myrkr . enn tungl mun hafa bloðs lit” (the sun will turn

49 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 269. 50 This fire is attested in the Old Icelandic Homily Book, in the AM 232 fol. copy of Jóns saga baptista II, a Marian miracle in AM 232 fol., the translation of Elucidarius, the translation of the Dialogues of Gregory, Tveggja saga Jóns ok Jakobs, and in Gísls þáttr Illugasonar in AM 66 fol. 51 Unger, Postola sögur, p. 269.

126

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

into darkness and the moon will have the color of blood).52 The Jóns saga postola in the manuscript recounts how Jesus retrieved Lazarus from the bosom of Abraham (faðm Abraham), but does not explain where or what that place is. Matheus saga postola adds only that God will judge the living and the dead, and visit “ogn elldz” (terror of fire) on the earth. The Helgafell manuscript AM 233 a fol., though now fragmentary, once contained three sagas addressing eschatological concerns and presents its audience with the most consistent descriptions of the Four Last Things. The three texts – Maríu saga, Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu, and Niðrstigningar saga – present different, but complementary, information about death, judgment, and resurrection. What is left of Maríu saga – the first three chapters – reveals that the text was a copy in the St-redaction (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11) family. The first three chapters do not reveal significant revision, so it is reasonable to assume that the manuscript once preserved the commentary on the Last Judgment and the dotes of glorified bodies. The older version of Niðrstigningar saga, an Old Norse-Icelandic translation of the Descensus ad Infernos section of the immensely popular Gospel of Nicodemus,53 was copied by the same hand who wrote Maríu saga and Jóns saga baptista II. The saga tells of Christ’s Harrowing of Hell and redeeming of the souls of Adam, Seth, the patriarchs, and the prophets. The audience is thus treated to a tour of hell, description of Satan and his demons, a glimpse of the gates of paradise, and warfare between Christ with his army of angels and the guardians of hell. The prologue to Níðrstigningar saga begins, as many apocryphal texts, with its origins and with a defense of its truthfulness even though its contents are not found explicitly in “helgom ritingom.” This concern over doubtfulness is manifested by the fact that the Latin text and the saga interpolate numerous scriptural passages aimed at authenticating the apocryphal episodes. The story opens with Carinus and Leucius finding themselves in a field that is “var þocusamt oc myrcr” (misty and dark).54 Adam, the patriarchs, and the prophets are all gathered in this field. A sudden brightness penetrates the

52 AM 656 I 4to 22v. See Revelation 6:12. 53 On the difference between the older and younger versions, the date of the translation, the sources, and the manuscripts of Niðrstigningar saga, see Dario Bullitta’s recent edition and translation: Niðrstigningar saga. Bullitta argues that the saga’s variant readings “are typical of the version known as the ‘Troyes redaction’ of the Latin Evangelium Nicodemi, which originated in twelfth-century France” (p. xv) and that the compiler of the saga has supplemented this source with glosses found in Peter Lombard and Peter Comestor. Due to loss of text in AM 233 a fol., text citations are to Bullitta’s edition. 54 Text and translation in Bullitta, Niðrstigningar saga, pp. 133 and 158.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

127

darkness and Adam, with Isaiah and other prophets, rejoice because the light must signal the promised arrival of Jesus. John the Baptist, because he is the forerunner, arrives first to announce the coming of the son of God. In seeing John, Adam is reminded that this man baptized Jesus in the Jordan and that he first learned that the son of God would come to hell when he sent his son Seth to the gates of paradise to retrieve oil from the olive tree of mercy. Seth travels to paradise but is blocked from entering due to burning fire and angels. The archangel Michael appears before Seth and reassures him that he, his father, and all who believe in God will receive the oil of mercy after five thousand and four hundred years have passed. At that time, the son of God will walk the earth and be baptized in the river Jordan; this son “mon stiga niþr vilia under iarþrike oc mon hann þa leiþa Adam føþor þinn i paradis til miscunnar tres” (shall willingly descend unto earth, and shall lead Adam, your father, into paradise to the tree of mercy).55 The saga then turns to Satan, who plots to snare Jesus and bring him to hell. Satan’s companions in hell remind him that this Jesus is the same one who retrieved Lazarus. The prince of hell does not heed this warning and the result is, of course, that Jesus descends in blinding light to break the darkness of hell, terrify the devils, conquer death, and redeem the souls of Adam, the patriarchs, and the prophets. As the redeemed are being led to paradise, they pass two men who have been “licamliger i paradiso” (bodily in paradise);56 these men are the prophets Enoch and Elias (Elijah), who will remain until they die in battle with the antichrist and are taken back up to paradise.57 While there is little correspondence with Maríu saga, Niðrstigningar saga’s depiction of hell surely fills a gap left by the final chapters of the life of the Virgin Mary. When the compiler of Maríu saga argues that it is through the incarnation and Crucifixion that death is vanquished and the souls and bodies of the righteous will receive four physical and three spiritual dowries, does he have Niðrstigningar saga in mind as proof? This is difficult to answer with any certainty. But it is possible to suggest that the scribes at Helgafell, in the act of reading and copying, did have this connection in mind. Another saga in AM 233 a fol., Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu, engages the subject of death and, as Niðrstigningar saga briefly does, the figure of Lazarus.

55 Text and translation in Bullitta, Niðrstigningar saga, pp. 136 and 160. 56 Text and translation in Bullitta, Niðrstigningar saga, pp. 150 and 165. Bullitta prefers “physically” for “licamliger.” 57 See Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence, p. 54: “Only Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and Jesus are already bodily in heaven.”

128

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

The saga of Martha and Mary Magdalen addresses the death and resurrection of their brother Lazarus because it is a crucial witness to God’s ability to restore life to the dead. According to Augustine, the resurrection of Lazarus after four days prefigured that of Christ and thus also all of humanity’s.58 When Jesus arrives in Bethany he agrees with the sisters that their brother will rise again on the last day, but he also reminds them “Ek em vpprisa ok líf” (I am the resurrection and life).59 If, Jesus argues, he can resurrect the dead at the Last Judgment he can now as well. The compiler of Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu then records what Jesus said next: Huerr sa er á mik truir mun þo lífa at hann hafi aðr dauðr uerit . ok sa er lifir ok trvir á mik . mun eigi deyja at eilifu. Þat er sva at skilja . at sá sem á mik trvir . þott hann hafvi dauðr uerit i likami . mun lifa i önd þar til er hann lifnar ok horund hans, su er þa lifnar . mun aldri deyia þan af . Ok huerr sa sem lifir i likama ok trvir á mik . þo at han deyi stundligha likams dauða . þa mun eigi deyia at eilifu fyrir lif andans . ok odauðleiks upprisunnar. (Whoever believes in me will live after having been dead, and he who lives and believes in me will never die eternally. That means that the one who believes in me, even though he has been dead in the body, will live in spirit until the time when he is resurrected along with his body, never to die an eternal death. And whoever lives in the body and believes in me, though he may die a temporary bodily death, will not die eternally because of the life of the spirit and the eternal life of the resurrection.)60

The speech offers the audience of AM 233 a fol. a concise summary of the doctrine of resurrection. The body will eventually be reunited with the soul – though that soul may rest for a time separated from the body until, presumably, the Last Judgment. The compiler, who Van Deusen identifies as Arngrímr Brandsson, does not name this place of spiritual rest, as the author of Páls saga postola II does. But the concept of a place of rest, a refrigerium, is the same. The rest of the saga offers two proofs of bodily resurrection. Lazarus returns and, as Mary Magdalen confirms, so does the son of God. In its complete state, AM 233 a fol. would have provided readers with three different, yet complementary, treatments of eschatological subjects. In Maríu saga they would read that the incarnation and Crucifixion conquered death for

58 See Augustine’s homily 49 in Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and His First Epistle and Barbara I. Gusick, “Death and Resurrection in the Towneley Lazarus,” in Death and Dying in the Middle Ages, ed. Edelgard E. DuBruck and Barbara I. Gusick (Berlin: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 335. 59 AM 233 a fol. 21ra18–21ra19. 60 AM 233 a fol. 21ra19–21ra26, translation, Van Deusen, The Saga of the Sister Saints, pp. 134–37.

Chapter 5 Last Things: Death, Judgment, and the Afterlife

129

the righteous and would be confronted with a list of the glorious dowries their souls and bodies would enjoy after the Last Judgment. They would also read in the life of the Virgin Mary about where judgment would take place and in which of the hands of God they should strive to be enclosed. Niðrstigningar saga accounts for the souls of Adam, the prophets, and the patriarchs – those who were righteous before the advent of Jesus – and also admits further evidence for the eventual resurrection. Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu delivers two further confirmations of bodily resurrection. These texts, recall, were copied by the same scribe. Each of them engages with a number of doctrinal subjects, and inquisitiveness concerning eschatological themes must be counted among them. Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu also survives in AM 235 fol., but the scribes of this manuscript did not select the saga for its confirmation of bodily resurrection. As I have already mentioned, the extract of Maríu saga condenses the chapters on Mary’s Assumption so that none of the saga’s commentary on the Last Judgment or glorified bodies is included. The other sagas in the manuscript also show little interest in eschatological themes, other than reminders that judgment and death will come, and that saints often die in the presence of brightness, fragrance, and heavenly music. It doesn’t seem overly-speculative to me then to suggest conscious selection of eschatologically minded texts among some scribes copying Maríu saga and other works into the same manuscripts. When these sagas are read solely in printed editions, there is a temptation to ignore correspondence as coincidental since the scribes did not compose the texts. There is also a tendency to dismiss confusion and contradiction as a difference of opinion, no matter how informed, on a complicated theological matter. But returning these commentaries to their manuscript contexts challenges us to explain how an audience might navigate confusion and any contradictions, or to at least recognize the predicament facing the scribes, readers, and hearers of these manuscripts who were searching for consensus. Difficult questions lacking simple answers emerge from exploring these manuscripts for the ways in which each text engages essential human questions. What are readers supposed to know about death, judgment, and the afterlife? How are they to prepare for their end(s)? Does each saga supplement the knowledge of the other? Is it up to the institution, the preacher, and/or each reader to reconcile the theology? In the absence of consensus or guidance, can the audience adopt the learning that suits them and disregard others, and if so, what are the consequences?

Conclusion The manuscripts of Maríu saga exhibit greater versatility than one might initially imagine. While they clearly served a devotional purpose, they also contain history and chronology, stories about human struggle from ancient and contemporary times and from across the known globe, repackaged and interpreted scripture, summaries of doctrine and theological commentary, behavioral instruction, ample proof of the intercessory powers of the saints, and (educated) conjectures about the pressing human questions concerning death and the afterlife. Indeed, the range of subjects addressed in the manuscripts justifies their expense and testifies to the reasons for their preservation and continued usage well after their initial production. Two of the medieval manuscripts, Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 and Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1, were clearly produced as Marian encyclopedias. Not unlike other Marian compendia known in Latin and other vernaculars across the medieval globe, they are reference works containing significant moments from Mary’s life, explanations of her role in soteriological and eschatological matters, and an abundance of legends proving Mary’s ability and willingness to cure ailments, save the dying, and intervene – often at the last moment – on behalf of those who call on her. The existence of eighteenth-century copies of this type of manuscript and the inventories of medieval churches indicate the utility and popularity of such Marian encyclopedias. The manuscripts of Maríu saga were utilized in a number of other ways as well. Some of them, such as AM 234 fol. and AM 235 fol., were clearly designed for use in communal reading, in services, and in the education of students and future clergy. Most of the manuscripts were intended to provide elucidation for the Latin illiterate, whether clerical or lay. They could be used in private devotion and as tools for the construction of sermons. The sagas of AM 234 fol., as I have argued in this book, insist on the virtues of patience and humility through their selection of texts and include various conceptions of the Last Judgment, heaven, and hell – even if those conceptions introduce confusion or contradictions. The scribes of the manuscript, working at or for the episcopal see at Skálholt, have opted (for the most part) to include saints’ sagas compiled according to late thirteenth- and fourteenth-century tastes to supply readers with amplified versions of the texts. They are not the authors of these sagas and it is difficult to determine if they are responsible for the variations. Proof that the scribes or their patrons of AM 234 fol. meant this collection of texts to serve as encouragement to patience and humility, or to ease fears concerning death and the afterlife, or to satisfy desire for interpretative explications of doctrine and scripture will always be elusive to us. We must https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-007

132

Conclusion

remember, however, that copying was also an act of reading. These readings are there on the parchment and the owners and users of the manuscripts might have recognized them (and other readings not addressed in this book) as well. The intentions of the scribes of other manuscripts are easier to identify. Because the sagas of AM 235 fol. have been condensed and are based on older, more homiletically inclined translations, it is likely that the codex was designed to provide appropriate readings for important feast days. The revisions made to the AM 235 fol. version of the Maríu saga commentary on the Assumption and Last Judgment supports this interpretation. The first part of AM 233 a fol. and its sagas about John the Baptist, Mary, and Christ’s Harrowing of Hell have a clear organizing principle, as does the second part and its lives of female saints and virgin martyrs. Even manuscripts stitched together over time, like AM 232 fol., can tell us a great deal about the community that sewed those leaves into one binding. In the case of AM 232 fol., monastic circles of northern Iceland pieced together a codex of learned devotional texts that both complemented and challenged each other. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of so many of the manuscripts obscure our ability to categorize them, to identify organizing principles, and to comment on the stability of the Maríu saga text, the intentions of the scribes, and readings that would have been available to users of the codices. Maríu saga has long been an understudied text. The lack of studies surprised me when I first encountered the saga many years ago. The complexity of Maríu saga warrants future investigation. Some of the sources the compiler – whether Kygri-Björn or not – used to create his vita of the Virgin Mary remain unidentified. There is also space to identify the routes of transmission of the hundreds of Marian miralces to Iceland. Additional studies examining Maríu saga in its manuscript contexts would likewise produce new readings and further our understanding of the saga and its place in Old Norse-Icelandic literary and cultural life. Future readers of Maríu saga might also identify the ways in which the saga influenced or was influenced by other genres of Old NorseIcelandic literature. Translations of the saga into modern languages would open it up to a broarder group of scholars and would be most welcome.1 Maríu saga is an intellectually rich text that is both an obvious product of its age and yet, in its more tender and speculative moments, still appealing to readers. The saga’s digressive exegesis is also somewhat unique in Old NorseIcelandic hagiography and in other vernacular accounts of the Virgin Mary’s life. Yet Maríu saga remains inaccessible to many. There are multiple reasons

1 Christelle Fairise will soon publish an edition of the saga with a French translation. I am currently working on an English translation of the saga.

Conclusion

133

for this, the manuscript transmission among them. Of the studies that have been published, including one of my own, few other than Wilhelm Heizmann have engaged with the saga in its manuscript contexts. The saga never existed alone on parchment; at the very least it was always supplemented by a collection of miracles. In fact, there were likely many other works copied alongside the saga that are now unknown to us because many manuscripts have not come down to us wholly. That Maríu saga exists with other texts – ones that complement and contradict it and that challenge our reading of it – is absent in the printed edition, no matter how impressive a piece of scholarship it is. Despite this criticism, this book is not meant to be a polemic against the printed edition. The footnotes throughout the study reveal, I think, my reliance on and admiration for edited texts. This book is, though, an argument for a scholarship that depends on varied ways of reading. Reading in manuscript opens up new avenues for exploration and insights that are often obscured by the printed text. The manuscript’s materiality, variance, and imperfections attune us – to the extent possible – to how it might have been used by the individuals involved in producing and consuming it. When we return texts to their manuscript contexts correspondences, thematic connections, and contradictions not as obvious in editions emerge from the parchment. While this book focuses in particular on hagiography, this method of reading can and should be applied more broadly in Old Norse-Icelandic studies. This type of reading has been utilized successfully in studies of Flateyjarbók,2 Codex Scardensis,3 the romances in Stock. Perg. fol. no. 7,4 and of Kirkjubæjarbok.5 It would likely be fruitful in studies of the collection of Íslendingsögur in AM 132 fol. (Möðruvallabók) likely compiled at the house of Augustinian Canons at Möðruvellir, the Helgafell product AM 226 fol. and its texts (Stjórn, Rómverja sögur, Alexanders saga, and Gyðinga saga), and many other parchment and post-medieval paper manuscripts. I suspect that such studies will discover illuminating and unexpected things – about working methods, audience, revision, thematic strands, genre, and more – as I have in the manuscripts of Maríu saga.

2 See Elizabeth Asham Rowe, The Development of Flateyjarbók: Iceland and the Norwegian Dynastic Crisis of 1389 (Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2005), and Merrill Kaplan, Thou Fearful Guest: Addressing the Past in Four Tales in Flateyjarbók (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2011). 3 See Collings, The Codex Scardensis: Studies in Icelandic Hagiography. 4 See Christopher Sanders, ed., Tales of Knights: Perg. Fol. nr. 7 in the Royal Library, Stockholm (Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, 2000). 5 See Kirsten Wolf, ed., A Female Legendary from Iceland: “Kirkjubæjarbók” (AM 429 12mo) in the Arnamagnæan Collection (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2011).

Appendix: The Manuscripts of Maríu saga AM 232 fol. 121 leaves, 316 mm × 230 mm, double columns Maríu saga and miracles are written by three scribes – Hand I writes 55ra–75vb – Hand II writes column 76ra – Hand III writes the remainder to 83r Texts in the manuscript: – 1r–54r: Barlaams saga ok Jósaphat (ca. 1300) – 54v: Jón Ketilssons efterlade gæld – Skuldareikningr eptir Jón Ketilsson andaðan (ca. 1440) – 55ra–83rb: Maríu saga med mirakler (ca. 1350) – Saga 55r–66v – Miracles begin 66v–83rb (fifty-three miracles) – 84ra–85va: Framför Maríu (ca. 1440) – 86ra–107vb: Jóns saga baptista II (ca. 1350) – 108ra–121va: Vitae Patrum (ca. 1370)

AM 233 a fol. (ca. 1350–1360) 29 leaves, 385 mm × 320 mm, double columns The manuscript was written at Helgafell – Helgafell hand I writes 1va–12rb and 28rb–29vb – Helgafell hand II writes 15va–27vb – An altogether different hand writes 13ra–14rb Texts in the manuscript: – 1va–5ra:24: Jóns saga baptista – 5ra:24–12vb: Maríu saga og jartegnir – Miracles 6ra–12vb (thirteen miracles) – 13r–14v: Marian miracles (seven miracles) – 15va–b: Saga af Fides, Spes og Karitas – 16ra–19rb: Katrínar saga – 19va–25vb: Marthe saga ok Marie Magdalen – 26ra: 1–14: Agnesar saga https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-008

136

– – – –

Appendix: The Manuscripts of Maríu saga

26ra–27rb: Agathu saga 27rb: Margrétar saga 28ra–vb:45: Niðrstigningar saga 28vb:45–29vb: Inventio crucis – Kross saga

AM 234 fol. (ca. 1340) 81 leaves, 440 mm × 280 mm, double columns The manuscript was written either by the scriptorium at Skálholt or for the monastery – Hand I writes 1–61v and 79–81 – Hand II writes 6ra–73r and 74–78 Texts in the manuscript: – 1ra–19vb:23: Antóníus saga – 19vb:24–28vb:1: Páls saga postola – 28vb:2–55vb:30: Maríu saga ok jartegnir (Miracle 28vb:2–25, saga 28vb: 25–39vb:29, miracles 39vb:30–55vb:30) – fifty-six miracles – 55vb:31–67ra:16: Jóns saga Hólabiskups – 67ra:17–73rb: Ágústínus saga – 74ra–78vb: Vitae Patrum – 79ra–81vb: Thómas saga erkibiskups

AM 235 fol. (ca. 1400) 68 leaves, 290 mm × 195 mm, double columns The manuscript was written either by the scriptorium at Skálholt or for the monastery – Hand I writes fols. 1–4, 5–13vb12, 14–19rb21 – Hand II writes the remainder of fol. 13v from 13vb12–13vb38 – Hand III writes the rest of fol. 19r (19rb22) and the rest of the codex to 68v – Titles and chapter headings are written by another hand throughout Texts in the manuscript: – 1ra:1–12: Hallvarðs saga – 1ra:13–2vb: Jóns saga baptista I – 3ra–4vb: Sebastianus saga

AM 240 IV fol. (ca. 1325–1375)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4vb:9–37: Agnesar saga meyiar 5ra–6vb:27: Maríu saga egipzku 6vb:27–10vb:20: Magnús saga Eyjajarls – Magnús saga hin skamma 10vb:20–12vb: Jóns saga Hólabiskups 13ra–17va: Pétrs saga postola 17vb–19rb:21: Margrétar saga 19rb:21–30ra: Marthe saga ok Marie Magdalen 30rb–36vb:6: Ólafs saga hins helga 36vb:7–38va:6: Fídesar saga, Spesar ok Karítasar 38va:7–41ra:18: Lárentíus saga erkidjákns 41ra:18–42vb:17: Saga vorrar frú – An extract of Maríu saga with two miracles 42vb:18–49rb:27: Augustinus saga 49rb:27–52vb:17: Mauritius saga 52vb:18–55rb:33: Díónysíuss saga 55rb:33–56ra: Flagellatio crucis – Kross saga 56rb–57rb: Theódórs saga 57va–66va: Marteins saga biskups 66va–68vb: Cecilíu saga meyiar

AM 240 I fol. (ca. 1375–1400) 2 leaves, 223 mm × 157 mm, single column Fragment of the E-redaction (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1)

AM 240 II fol. (ca. 1300) 3 leaves, 310 mm × 230 mm, double columns Fragment of the saga (A-redaction) and four miracles

AM 240 IV fol. (ca. 1325–1375) 3 leaves, 282 mm × 158 mm, double columns Six miracles, including the Visio of Elisabeth of Schönau

137

138

Appendix: The Manuscripts of Maríu saga

AM 240 IX fol. (ca. 1350–1400) 11 leaves, 307 mm × 232 mm, double columns Fragment of prologue from E-redaction Twenty-six miracles, including the Visio of Elisabeth of Schönau

AM 240 X fol. (ca. 1400) 3 leaves, 295 mm × 235 mm, double columns Fragment of A-redaction

AM 240 XI fol. (ca. 1275–1300) 4 leaves, 295 mm × 235 mm Fragment of A-redaction with four miracles

AM 240 XIII fol. (ca. 1400–1500) 4 leaves, 200 mm × 160 mm Fragment of A-redaction with seven miracles

AM 240 XIV fol. (ca. 1300) Fragment of 1 leaf, 180 mm × 175 mm A-redaction

AM 633 4to (ca. 1700–1725) Paper, 115 leaves, 200 mm × 160 mm Copied by Magnús Einarsson (1688–1752) from a medieval manuscript Pages 1–118 A-redaction of the saga Pages 119–229 thirty miracles

AM 656 I 4to (Maríu saga ca. 1325–1350)

AM 634/AM 635 4to (ca. 1700–1725) Paper, 510 leaves, 195 mm × 164 mm Copied by Eyjólfur Björnsson (1666–1746) from a lost medieval exemplar Fragment of the A-redaction Largest extant collection of miracles in an Icelandic manuscript

AM 655 II 4to (ca. 1200–1224) 4 leaves, 150 mm × 115 mm Marian miracle concerning Romaldus

AM 655 XIX 4to (ca. 1200–1250) 2 leaves, 196 mm × 136 mm Marian miracle concerning Theophilus

AM 656 I 4to (Maríu saga ca. 1325–1350) 55 leaves (+ 56–62), 245 mm × 160 mm, single column Folios 46–62 written ca. 1600 Texts in the manuscript: – 1r–20r: Maríu saga and miracles – 1r–17v: Incomplete copy of the saga – 18r–20r: Prologue and three miracles – 20v–39v: Tveggja postola saga Pétrs ok Pals – 39v–44v: Jóns saga postola – 44v–49v: Matheus saga postola – 50r–v: Jakobs saga postola – 51r–52v: Andreas saga postola – 53r–55v: Thómas saga postola – 56r–v: Jakobs saga postola – 56r–61r: Bartholomaeus saga postola – 61r–62v: Tveggja postola saga Simonis og Jude

139

140

Appendix: The Manuscripts of Maríu saga

NRA 78 (ca. 1250–1300) 1 leaf with a fragment of the A-redaction of the saga, the Latin prayer “O Maria flos virginum,” the prologue to the miracles, and part of the miracle concerning Theophilus.

NRA 79 (ca. 1350) 2 leaves, double column, written by a single hand The leaves were used in the bindings of Norwegian account books from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Texts in the fragment: – 1ra–1v: Maríu saga – 2r–2v: Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu

Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (ca. 1450–1500) 178 leaves, 250 mm × 200 mm, double columns Texts in the manuscript: – 1–16v: E-redaction of saga with a new prologue – 16v–178r: prologue and 189 miracles The manuscript contains two registers detailing the preceding miracles. The first occurs at 98va–99rb and the second at 177rb–178rb. No other manuscript contains such registers.

Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (ca. 1325–1375) 99 leaves, 220 mm × 150 mm, double columns – 1va–85ra29 were written ca. 1325–1375 – 85ra30–99rb were written ca. 1400–1450 Texts in the manuscript: – 1va–26vb: St-redaction of the saga – 27va–99rb: prologue and sixty-four miracles

Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I (ca. 1550)

Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I (ca. 1550) 27 leaves, 110 mm × 190 mm Written by Gottskálk Jónsson Texts in the manuscript: – 1–22: Veraldar saga – 23r: Fjögur stórþing – 23r: Kennimannsskapr – 24v–25r: Fjarða nöfn á Íslandi – 25v–27v: an extract of Maríu saga

141

Bibliography Manuscripts of Maríu saga AM 232 fol. (Maríu saga text ca. 1350) AM 233 a fol. (ca. 1350–1360) AM 234 fol. (ca. 1340) AM 235 fol. (ca. 1400) AM 240 I fol. (ca. 1375–1400) AM 240 II fol. (ca. 1300) AM 240 IV fol. (ca. 1325–1375) AM 240 IX fol. (ca. 1350–1400) AM 240 X fol. (ca. 1400) AM 240 XI fol. (ca. 1275–1300) AM 240 XIII fol. (ca. 1400–1500) AM 240 XIV fol. (ca. 1300) AM 633 4to (ca. 1700–1725) AM 634/AM 635 4to (ca. 1700–1725) AM 655 II 4to (ca. 1200–1224) AM 655 XIX 4to (ca. 1200–1250) AM 656 I 4to (ca. 1325–1350) NRA 78 (ca. 1250–1300) NRA 79 (ca. 1350) Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 (ca. 1450–1500) Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 (ca. 1325–1375) Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I (ca. 1550)

Other Manuscripts AM 226 fol. (ca. 1350–1360): Stjórn, Rómverja sögur, Alexanders saga, Gyðinga saga AM 227 fol. (ca. 1340–1360): Stjórn AM 238 I fol. (ca. 1275–1325): Heilagra meyja sögur AM 242 fol. (ca. 1340–1370): Codex Wormianus AM 350 fol. (1363): Skarðsbók Jónsbókar AM 384 fol. (1700–1749): Jón Ólafsson’s katalog AM 394 fol. (ca. 1800–1900): Jón Sigurðsson’s katalog AM 398 4to (ca. 1600–1700): Guðmundar saga biskups AM 435 a 4to (1721–1728): Catalogus Codicum pergamenorum Arna Magnæi AM 619 4to (ca. 1200–1225): Homiliebog AM 645 4to (ca. 1225–1250): Heilagra manna sögur AM 674 a 4to (ca. 1150–1199): Elucidarius AM 677 4to (ca. 1200–1225): Homiliebog AM 686 b 4to (ca. 1200–1224): Homilie AM 686 c 4to (ca. 1200–1224): Homilie https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-009

144

Bibliography

AM 764 4to (ca. 1376–1386): Reynistaðarbók AM 921 V 4to (ca. 1375–1425): Heilagra meyja sögur SÁM 1 (ca. 1360–1375): Skarðsbók postulasaga Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15 (ca. 1200): Hómilíur

Primary Texts Astås, Reidar, ed. Stjórn: Tekst etter håndskriftene. 2 vols. Oslo: Riksarkivet, 2009. Augustine of Hippo. De patientia. In Patrologia Latina vol. 40. Patrologia Latina Database. Edited by J.P. Migne. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995. Augustine of Hippo. On Patience. Translated by H. Browne. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887. Ásdís Egilsdóttir, Gunnar Harðarson, and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, eds. Maríukver: Sögur og kvæði af heilagri guðsmóður frá fyrri tíð. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenska Bókmenntafélag, 1996. Modern Icelandic Edition. Bjarni Ólafsson and Þorbjörg Helgadóttir, eds. Katrínar saga. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar í Íslenskum Fræðum, 2017. Boyarin, Adrienne Williams, ed. and trans. Miracles of the Virgin in Middle English. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2015. Boyd, Berverly, ed. The Middle English Miracles of the Virgin Mary. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1964. Bruce, Scott G., ed. The Penguin Book of Hell. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018. Bullitta, Dario, ed. and trans. Niðrstigningar saga: Sources, Transmission, and Theology of the Old Norse “Descent into Hell. ” Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017. Bullitta, Dario, ed. and trans. Páls leizla: The Vision of St. Paul. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2017. Cahill, Peter, ed. Duggals leiðsla. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, 1983. Canal, J.M. “El libro de laudibus et miraculis sanctae Mariae de Guillermo de Malmesbury.” Claretianum 8 (1968): 71–242. Chase, Martin, ed. and trans. “Lilja.” In Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages, edited by Margaret Clunies Ross, 554–677. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. Clark, Anne L., ed. and trans. Elisabeth of Schönau: The Complete Works. New York: Paulist Press, 2000. Condon, Edward, ed. Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. Sayings of the Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2019. Fahey, William Edmund, ed. The Foundations of Western Monasticism: The Life of Saint Anthony of the Desert, the Holy Rule of Saint Benedict, and the Twelve Degrees of Humility and Pride. Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, TAN Classics, 2013. Firchow, Evelyn Sherabon and Kaaren Grimstad, eds. ‘Elucidarius’ in Old Norse Translation. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, 1989. Foote, Peter, ed. A Saga of St. Peter the Apostle: Perg. 4: onr 19 in the Royal Library, Stockholm. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1990. Foote, Peter, ed. Jóns saga helga. Jóns saga Hólabyskups ens Helga. Copenhagen: Editiones Arnamagnæanae Series A vol. 14, 2003.

Primary Texts

145

Foote, Peter, ed. Lives of Saints: Perg. fol. nr. 2 in the Royal Library, Stockholm. Early Icelandic Manuscripts in Facsimile. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1962. Gjerløw, Lilli, ed. Liturgica Islandica, 2 vols. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæna. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Boghandel, 1980. Gjerløw, Lilli, ed. Ordo Nidrosiensis Ecclesiae. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1968. Hawk, Brandon W., trans. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Nativity of Mary. Early Christian Apocrypha. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019. Heizmann, Wilhelm, ed. Das Altisändische Marienleben. Teil I: Historisch-philologische Studien. Teil II: Edition der drei Redaktionen nach den Handschriften AM 234 fol., Holm 11 4to, und Holm 1 4to. Habilitationshcrift-Facbbereich Historisch-philologishce Wissensschaften der Georg-August-Unviversität Göttingen, 1993. Honorius Augustodunensis. Elucidarius. In Patrologia Latina vol. 172. Patrologia Latina Database. Edited by J.P. Migne. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995. Honorius Augustodunensis. The Old Norse Elucidarius: Original Text and English Translation. Edited and translated by Evelyn Scherabon Firchow. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1992. Honorius Augustodunensis. Sigillum Beatae Mariae. Translated by Amelia Carr. Toronto: Peregrina Publishing, 1991. Jacobus de Voragine. Legenda Aurea, ed. in Theodore Graesse, Legenda Aurea: Vulgo Historia Lombardica Dicta. Dresden and Leipzig: Impensis Librariae Arnoldianae, 1866. Jón Sígurðsson and Guðbrandur Vigfússon, eds. Biskupa Sögur. Kaupmannahöfn: Í Prentsmiðju S.L. Möllers, 1858. Jón Sigurðsson and Jón Þorkelsson, eds. Diplomatarium Islandicum, 16 vols. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Bókmentafjela, 1857–1976. Jónas Kristjánsson, ed. Biskupa Sögur I, 2 vols. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag, 2003. Jónas Kristjánsson, ed. Biskupa Sögur II. Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka Fornritafélag, 2002. Keyser, Rudolf and C.R. Unger, eds. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga: En Religiös Romantisk Fortælling. Christiania: Feilberg & Landmarks Forlag, 1851. de Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea, ed. The Icelandic Homily Book: Perg. 15 4to in the Royal Library, Stockholm. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, 1993. Loth, Agnete, ed. Reykjaholabok: Islandske Helgenlegender. 2 vols. Copehnagen: Munksgaard, 1969–1970. Nigel of Canterbury. Miracles of the Virgin Mary, in Verse. Edited by Jan Ziolkowski. Toronto: PIMS, 1986. Ólafur Halldórsson, ed. Mattheus saga postula. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, 1994. Pseudo-Augustine. Liber de assumptione de beatae Mariae Virginis. In Patrologia Latina vol. 40. Patrologia Latina Database. Edited by J.P. Migne. Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1995. Radbertus, Paschasius (Pseudo-Jerome). De Partv Virginis/De Assvmptione Sanctae Mariae Virginis. Edited by E. Ann Matter and Alberti Ripberger. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medieaeualis, LVIC. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Rindal, Magnus, ed. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga: Manuscript no. 6 fol. in the Royal Library, Stockholm and the Norwegian Fragments. Oslo: Society for Publication of Old Norwegian Manuscripts, 1980. Rindal, Magnus, ed. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. Oslo: Norsk Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, 1981.

146

Bibliography

Roth, F.W.E., ed. Die Visionen der Hl. Elisabeth und die Schriften der Äbte Ekbert und Emecho von Schönau. Brünn: Verlag der Studien aus dem Benedictiner – und Cistercienser – Orden, 1884. Sanders, Christopher, ed. Tales of Knights: Perg. Fol. nr. 7 in the Royal Library, Stockholm. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, 2000. Selma Jónsdóttir, Stefán Karlsson, and Sverrir Tómasson, eds. Helgastaðabók Nikulás saga. Perg. 4to NR. 16. Konungsbókhlöðu í Stokkhölmi. Manuscripta Islandica Medii Aevi. Reykjavík: Sverrir Kristinsson, 1982. Slay, Desmond, ed. Codex Skardensis: Skarðsbók. Early Icelandic Manuscripts in Facsimile. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1960. Stefán Karlsson, ed. Sagas of Icelandic Bishops: Fragments of Eight Manuscripts. Early Icelandic Manuscripts in Facsimile. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1967. Sverrir Tómasson, Bragi Halldórsson, and Einar Sigurbjörnsson, eds. Heilagra karla sögur. Reykjavík: Bókmenntafræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2007. Tischendorf, Constantine, ed. Apocalypses Apocryphae: Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Iohannis, item Mariae Dormitio. Leipzig: Hermann Mendelssohn, 1866. Unger, C.R., ed. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. Christiania: Feilberg & Landmark, 1851. Unger, C.R., ed. Heilagra manna søgur: Fortællinger og legender om hellige mænd og kvinder. 2 vols. Christiania: B.M. Bentzen, 1877. Unger, C.R., ed. Maríu saga: Legender om Jomfru Maria og Hendes Jartegn. Christiania: Brögger & Christie, 1871. Unger, C.R., ed. Postola sögur: Legendariske fortællinger om apostlernes liv, deres kamp for kristendommens udbredelse samt deres martyrdød. Christiania: B.M. Bentzen, 1874. Van Deusen, Natalie M., ed. and trans. The Saga of the Sister Saints: The Legend of Martha and Mary Magdalen in Old Norse-Icelandic Translation. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2019. William of Auvergne. On the Virtues: Part One of On the Virtues and Vices. Translated by by Roland J. Teske. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2009. William of Malmesbury. The Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Edited and translated by R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 2015. Wisén, Theodor, ed. Homilíu-bók: Isländska Homilier Efter Handskrift Från Tolfte århundradet. Lund: CWK Gleerups Förlag, 1872. Wolf, Kirsten, ed. A Female Legendary from Iceland: “Kirkjubæjarbók” (AM 429 12mo) in the Arnamagnæan Collection. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2011. Wolf, Kirsten, Bergljót Kristjánsdóttir, Guðrún Ingólfsdóttir, and Sverrir Tómasson, eds. Heilagra meyja sögur. Reykjavík: Bókmenntafræðistofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2003. Wrightson, Kellinde. Fourteenth-Century Icelandic Verse on the Virgin Mary. London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2001.

Secondary Texts Agnes S. Arnórsdóttir. “Motherhood as Emotion and Social Practice: Mary and Anne as Maternal Models in Medieval Iceland.” In Denmark and Europe in the Middle Ages, ca. 1000–1525: Essays in Honour of Professor Michael H. Gelting, edited by Kerstin Hundahl and Lars Kjaer, pp. 43–58. Surrey: Ashgate, 2014.

Secondary Texts

147

Almond, Philip. “The Buddha of Christendom: A Review of the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat.” Religious Studies 23.3 (1987): 391–406. Astell, Ann W. The Song of Songs in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Astås, Reidar. “Spor av teologisk tenkning og refleksjon i norsk og islandsk høymiddelalder.” Collegium Medievale 6 (1993): 133–67. Ásdís Egilsdóttir. “Kvendÿrlingar og kvenímynd trúarlegra bókmennta á Íslandi.” In Konur og kristsmenn. Þættir úr kristnisögu Íslands, edited by Inga Huld Hákonardóttir, pp. 93–116. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan, 1996. Battista, Simonetta. “Making New Texts from Old: The Use of Sources in the Old Norse Jóns saga postola.” In The 15th International Saga Conference: 5th–11th August 2012, Aarhus University. Preprint of Abstracts, edited by A. Mathias Valentin Nordvig and Lisbeth H. Torfing, pp. 23–26. http://sagaconference.au.dk/fileadmin/sagaconference/Preprintonline.pdf. Last accessed June 2, 2019. Battista, Simonetta. “The Ten Names of John: A Theological Passage in Jóns saga baptista.” In Studi anglo-norreni in onore di John S. McKinnell: ‘He hafað sundorgecynd, ’ edited by Maria Elena Ruggerini, pp. 357–64. Cagliari: CUEC, 2009. Bejczy, István P., ed. The Cardinal Virtues in the Middle Ages: A Study in Moral Thought from the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century. Leiden: Boston, 2011. Bejczy, István P. and Richard Newhauser, eds. Virtue and Ethics in the Twelfth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Bekker-Nielsen, Hans. “Icelandic Manuscripts in Denmark and Their Return to Iceland.” Libri 23.3 (1973): 169–80. Bekker-Nielsen, Hans. “The Victorines and Their Influence on Old Norse Literature.” In The Fifth Viking Congress, edited by Bjarni Niclasen, pp. 32–36. Tórshavn: Føroya Fródskaparfelag, 1968. Bekker-Nielsen, Hans and Birté Carle, eds. Saints and Sagas: A Symposium. Odense: Odense University Press, 1994. Bell, Kimberly K. and Julie Nelson Couch, eds. The Texts and Contexts of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 108: The Shaping of an English Vernacular Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Boulhosa, Patricia Pires. Icelanders and the Kings of Norway: Mediaeval Sagas and Legal Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Boyarin, Adrienne Williams. Miracles of the Virgin Mary in Medieval England: Law and Jewishness in Marian Legends. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2010. Bullitta, Dario. “The Tuscan Provenance of Framför Maríu.” In The Cult of Saints in Medieval Iceland: An International Symposium. Forthcoming. Busby, Keith. Codex and Context: Reading Old French Verse Narrative in Manuscript. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. Bynum, Caroline Walker. “Death and Resurrection in the Middle Ages: Some Modern Implications.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 142.4 (December 1982): 589–96. Bynum, Caroline Walker. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200–1336. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017 reprint. Bynum, Caroline Walker and Paul Freedman, eds. Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.

148

Bibliography

Carle, Birté. “Men and Women in the Saints’ Sagas of Stock. 2, fol.” In Structure and Meaning in Old Norse Literature: New Approaches to Textual Analysis and Literary Criticism, edited by John Lindow, Lars Lönnroth, and Gerd Wolfgang Weber, pp. 317–46. Odense: Odense University Press, 1986. Carlsen, Christian. Visions of the Afterlife in Old Norse Literature. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2015. Ciklamini, Marlene. “Hidden and Revealed: The Manifest Presence of the Virgin Mary in Bishop Guðmundr’s Life.” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 40.1 (2006): 223–62. Classen, Albrecht. “Death and the Culture of Death.” In Death in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Time: The Material and Spiritual Conditions of the Culture of Death, edited by Albrecht Classen, pp. 1–58. Berlin: De Grutyer, 2016. Clayton, Mary. The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Clayton, Mary. The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Clayton, Mary. “The Transitus Mariae: The Tradition and Its Origins.” Apocrypha 10 (1999): 74–98. Clunies Ross, Margaret. “Criticism and Literary Theory in Old Norse-Icelandic.” In The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 2, The Middle Ages, edited by Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson, pp. 345–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Clunies Ross, Margaret. “Love in a Cold Climate – with the Virgin Mary.” In Romance and Love in Late Medieval and Early Modern Iceland: Essays in Honor of Marianne Kalinke, edited by Kirsten Wolf and Johanna Denzin, pp. 303–17. Islandica 54. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2008. Cole, Richard. “Philology and Desire in Old Norse, between Stone and a Hard Place.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 117.4 (October 2018): 505–25. Collings, Lucy. The Codex Scardensis: Studies in Icelandic Hagiography. PhD diss., Cornell University, 1969. Collins, John J., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Conti, Aidan. “The Old Norse Afterlife of Ralph d’Escures’s Homilia de assumptione Mariae.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 107.2 (April 2008): 215–38. Cormack, Margaret. “Sagas of Saints.” In Old Icelandic Literature and Society, edited by Margaret Clunies Ross, pp. 302–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Cormack, Margaret. The Saints in Iceland: Their Veneration from Conversion to 1400. Preface by Peter Foote. Brussells: Société des Bollandistes, 1994. Cormack, Margaret. “Saints of Medieval Hólar: A Statistical Survey of the Veneration of Saints in the Diocese.” Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 3.2 (2011): 7–37. Dagenais, John. The Ethics of Reading of Reading in a Manuscript Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. Donavin, Georgiana. Scribit Mater: Mary and the Language Arts in the Literature of Medieval England. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Drechsler, Stefan Andreas. Making Manuscripts at Helgafell in the Fourteenth Century. PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 2017. Driscoll, M.J. “Marking-Up Abbreviations in Old Norse-Icelandic Manuscripts.” In Medieval Texts – Contemporary Media: The Art and Science of Editing in the Digital Age, edited by Maria Grazia Saibene and Marina Buzzoni, pp. 13–34. Pavia: Ibis, 2009. Driscoll, M.J. “Postcards from the Edge.” Variants 2/3 (2004): 21–36.

Secondary Texts

149

Driscoll, M.J. “The Words on the Page: Thoughts on Philology, Old and New.” In Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature, edited by Judy Quinn and Emily Lethbridge, pp. 87–104. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010. Driscoll, M.J. and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, eds. 66 Manuscripts from the Arnamagnæana Collection. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2015. Drout, Michael D.C. “Doing Philology 2: Something ‘Old,’ Something ‘New’: Material Philology and the Recovery of the Past.” The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval Northwestern Europe 13 (August 2010): https://www.heroicage.org/issues/13/pi.php. DuBois, Thomas A., ed. Sanctity in the North: Saints, Lives, and Cults in Medieval Scandinavia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. DuBruck, Edelgard E. and Barbara I. Gusick, eds. Death and Dying in the Middle Ages. Berlin: Peter Lang, 1999. Einar Sigurbjörnsson. “Maríukveðskapur á mótum kaðólsku og lúthersku.” In Til heiðurs og hugbótar. Greinar um trúarkveðskap fyrri alda, edited by Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir and Anna Guðmundsdóttir, pp. 113–29. Reykholt: Snorrastofa, 2003. Eriksen, Stefka G. “Emotional Religiosity and Religious Happiness in Old Norse Literature and Culture.” Arkiv för Nordisk filologi 133 (2018): 53–84. Eriksen, Stefka G. “New Philology/Manuscript Studies.” In Handbook of Arthurian Romance: King Arthur’s Court in Medieval European Literature, edited by Leah Tether and Johnny McFayden, pp. 199–214. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. Eriksen, Stefka G. Writing and Reading in Medieval Manuscript Culture: The Translation and Transmission of the Story of Elye in Old French and Old Norse Literary Contexts. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Fairise, Christelle R. “Relating Mary’s Life in Medieval Iceland: Maríu saga. Similarities and Differences with the Continental Lives of the Virgin.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 129 (2014): 165–96. Flory, David A. Marian Representations in the Miracle Tales of Thirteenth-Century Spain and France. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000. Foote, Peter. “A Fragment of a Text in AM 235 fol.” In Twenty-Eight Papers Presented to Hans Bekker-Nielsen on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday 28 April 1993, edited by Jørgen Højgaard Jørgensen and Elmer H. Antonsen, pp. 237–55. Odense: Odense University Press, 1993. Gambero, Luigi. Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologians. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. Gibson, Gail McMurray. The Theater of Devotion: East Anglian Drama and Society in the Late Middle Ages, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989. Gjerløw, Lilli, ed. Antiphonarium Nidrosiensis Ecclesiae. Libri liturgici provinciae Nidrosiensis medii aevi III. Oslo: Norsk Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, 1979. Gjerløw, Lilli, ed. Ordo Nidrosiensis Ecclesiae. Libri liturgici provinciae Nidrosiensis medii aevi II. Oslo: Norsk Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, 1968. Glauser, Jürg, Pernille Hermann, and Stephen A. Mitchell, eds. Handbook of Pre-Modern Nordic Memory Studies. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. González, José María Salvador. “The Virgin Mary as a Model of Obedience in the Patristic Tradition and Her Representation in the Late Medieval Iconography of the Annunciation.” Social Sciences and Humanities Journal 110.8 (August 2015): 2–23. Graef, Hilda. Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2009.

150

Bibliography

Grønlie, Siân E. The Saint and the Saga Hero: Hagiography and Early Icelandic Literature. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2017. Gunnell, Terry and Annette Lassen, eds. The Nordic Apocalypse: Approaches to “Völuspá” and Nordic Days of Judgement. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Gödel, Vilhelm. Katalog öfver Kongl: Bibliotekets Fornisländska ock Fornnorska Handskrifter. Stockholm: Kungl. Boktrvckeriet, P.A. Norsteut & Soner, 1897–1900. Haki Antonsson. Damnation and Salvation in Old Norse Literature. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2018. Haki Antonsson. “Salvation and Early Saga Writing in Iceland: Aspects of the Works of the Þingeyrar Monks and Their Associates.” Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 8 (2012): 71–140. Hall, Thomas N. “Medieval Traditions about the Site of Judgment.” Essays in Medieval Studies 10 (1993): 79–97. Hall, Thomas N. “Old Norse-Icelandic Sermons.” In The Sermon: Typologie des Sources du Moyen Age Occidental, edited by Beverly Mayne Kienzle, pp. 661–709. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Hallberg, Peter. “Imagery in Religious Old Norse Prose Literature: An Outline.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 102 (1987): 120–70. Haraldur Bernharðsson, ed. Íslensk klausturmenning á miðöldum. Rekjavík: Háskólaútgáfan, 2016. Head, Thomas, ed. Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology. New York: Routledge, 2001. Heizmann, Wilhelm. “Arngríms Guðmundar saga, Maríu saga und Gregors Moralia in Iob.” Opuscula 8. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 38. Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1985: 189–98. Heizmann, Wilhelm. “Liebe und Durst: Der Heilige Bernhard von Clairvaux in der altisländischen Mirakelüberlieferung.” Opuscula 13. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 47. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2010: 55–118. Heizmann, Wilhelm. “Zur typologischen Interpretation des Magnificat in Maríu saga.” In The Sixth International Saga Conference, Helsingør 28.7–2.8 1985. Workshop Papers. 2 vols., edited by Jonna Louis-Jensen, Christopher Sanders and Peter Springborg, vol. 1, pp. 469–82. Copenhagen: Det arnamagnæanske Institut, 1985. Heslop, Kate and Jürg Glauser, eds. RE:Writing: Medial Perspectives on Textual Culture in the Icelandic Middle Ages. Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 2018. Ihnat, Kati. “Marian Miracles and Marian Liturgies in the Benedictine Tradition of PostConquest England.” In Contextualising Miracles in the Christian West, 1100–1500: New Historical Approaches, edited by Matthew Mesley and Louise Wilson, pp. 63–98. Oxford: Medium Aevum Monographs, 2015. Ihnat, Kati. Mother of Mercy, Bane of the Jews: Devotion to the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Norman England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016. Johnston, Michael and Michael Van Dussen, eds. The Medieval Manuscript Book: Cultural Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Jorgensen, Peter A. “Julian the Apostate and Manuscript Relatedness in Maríu saga.” In Across the Oceans: Studies from East to West in Honor of Richard K. Seymour, edited by Irmengard Roach and Cornelia Moore, pp. 113–23. Honolulu: The College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawai’i, 1995. Jónas Kristjánsson. Eddas and Sagas. Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 1992. Kalinke, Marianne. “Augustinus saga: A Learned and a Popular Version.” In Samtíðarsögur: The Contemporary Sagas. The Ninth International Saga Conference. 2 vols., edited by Sverrir Tómasson, vol. 2, pp. 435–49. Akureyri: Háskólanum á Akureyri, 1994.

Secondary Texts

151

Kalinke, Marianne. “Maríu saga og Önnu.” Arkiv för nordisk filologi 109 (1994): 43–99. Kaplan, Merrill. Thou Fearful Guest: Addressing the Past in Four Tales in Flateyjarbók. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2011. Karl G. Johansson. “Bergr Sokkason och Arngrímur Brandsson – översättare och författare i samma miljö.” In Old Norse Myths, Literature and Society: Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference, 2–7 July 2000, University of Sydney, edited by Geraldine Barnes and Margaret Clunies Ross, pp. 181–97. Sydney: Center for Medieval Studies, 2000. Karl G. Johansson. “Texter i rörelse: Översättning, original textproduktion och tradering pä norra Island 1150–1400.” In Übersetzen im skandinavischen Mittelalter, edited by Vera Johanterwage and Stefanie Würth, pp. 83–106. Vienna: Verlag Fassbaender, 2007. Karl G. Johansson and Maria Arvidsson, eds. Barlaam i nord: Legenden om Barlaam och Josaphat i den nordiska medelstidsliterraturen. Bibliotheca Nordica. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2009. Kålund, Kristian. Katalog over den Arnamagnænske håndskriftsamling. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, 1888. Kjesrud, Karoline. “Conceptions of the Virgin Mary in Medieval Western Scandinavia.” In Words and Matter: The Virgin Mary in Late Medieval and Early Modern Parish Life, edited by Jonas Carlquist and Virginia Langum, pp. 87–103. Stockholm: Sällskapet Runica et Mediaevalia, 2015. Kjesrud, Karoline and Mikael Males, eds. Faith and Knowledge in Late Medieval and Early Modern Scandinavia. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020. Kupferschmied, Irene Ruth. Die altisländischen und altnorwegischen Marienmirakel. 2 vols. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2017. Le Goff, Jacques. The Birth of Purgatory. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. Loth, Agnete. “Roted fragmentum membraneum, um Sanctam Luciam og Agatham. AM 921, V, 4to.” In Fetskrift til Ludvig Holm-Olsen på hans 70-årsdag den 9. juni 1984, pp. 221–35. Øvre Ervik: Alvheim & Eide, 1984. McDannell, Colleen and Bernhard Lang. Heaven: A History. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. McDougall, David. “‘Pseudo-Augustinian’ Passages in ‘Jóns saga baptista 2ʹ and the ‘Fourth Grammatical Treatise.’” Traditio 44 (1988): 463–83. McKenzie, D.F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. McKinnon, James. “The Fifteen Steps to the Temple and the Gradual Psalms.” Reprinted in The Temple, the Church Fathers, and Early Western Chant, pp. 29–50. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. McNamarra, Rebecca F. and Una McIlvenna. “Medieval and Early Modern Emotional Responses to Death and Dying.” Parergon 31.2, special issue: Medieval and Early Modern Emotional Responses to Death and Dying (2014): 1–10. McTurk, Rory, ed. A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2007. Marner, Astrid. Glosur lesnar af undirdiupi omeliarum hins mikla Gregorij, Augustini, Ambrosij ok Jeronimi ok annarra kennifedra: Väterzitate und Politik in der “Jóns saga baptista” des Grímr Hólmsteinsson. PhD diss., Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 2013.

152

Bibliography

Marner, Astrid. “Kennifeðr helgir”: Lateinische Autoritäten in der altnordischen Hagiographie. MA thesis, Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, 2007. Marner, Astrid. “Translations of Authorities in Old Norse Hagiography: The Example of Jóns saga baptista.” The 2013 meeting of the Medieval Translator conference: “Translation and Authority Authorities in Translation.” KU Leuven (Belgium), Monday 8 – Friday July 12, 2013. https://www.academia.edu/6454459/Translations_of_Authorities_in_Old_Norse_ Hagiography._The_Example_of_Jons_saga_baptista. Last accessed June 2, 2019. Marx, C.W. “Beginning and Endings: Narrative-Linking in Five Manuscripts from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and the Problem of Textual ‘Integrity.’” In Manuscripts and Readers, edited by Derek Pearsall, pp. 70–81. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1983. Matter, E. Ann. The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. Már Jónsson. Arnas Magnæus philologus (1663–1730). Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2012. Már Jónsson. “Manuscript Design in Medieval Iceland.” In From Nature to Script: Reykholt, Environment, Centre, and Manuscript Making, edited by Helgi Þorláksson, Þóra Björg Sigurðardóttir, and Egill Erlendsson, pp. 231–44. Reykholt: Snorrastofa, 2012. Mimouni, Simon Claude. Dormition et Assomption de Maries: Histoire des traditiones anciennes. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1995. Minnis, Alastair. From Eden to Eternity: Creations of Paradise in the Late Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. Minnis, Alastair. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Minnis, A.J. and A.B. Scott, eds. Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, ca. 1100–ca. 1375: The Commentary Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Mussafia, Adolfo. Studien zu den mittelalterlichen Marienlegenden. 4 vols. Vienna: Tempsky, 1887–1891. Najork, Daniel C. “The Middle English Translation of the Transitus Mariae Attributed to Joseph of Arimathea: An Edition of Oxford, All Souls College, MS 26.” JEGP 117.4 (October 2018): 478–504. Najork. Daniel C. Translating Marian Doctrine into the Vernacular: The Bodily Assumption in Middle English and Old Norse-Icelandic Literature. PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2014. Najork, Daniel C. “The Virgin Mary and the Last Judgment in the Old Norse-Icelandic Maríu saga.” In Catastrophes and the Apocalyptic in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, edited by Robert Bjork, pp. 15–28. Arizona Studies in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Turnhout: Brepols, 2019. Napolitano, Frank M. “The N-Town Presentation of Mary in the Temple and the Production of Rhetorical Knowledge.” Studies in Philology 110.1 (Winter 2013): 1–17. Nedkvitne, Arnved. Lay Belief in Norse Society, 1000–1350. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2009. Neijmann, Daisy L., ed. A History of Icelandic Literature. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press, 2006. Neugaard, Edward J. “The Miracles de la Verge Maria: Motif-Index and Sources.” Romance Languages Annual 1 (1989): 565–71. Orning, Hans Jacob. The Reality of the Fantastic: The Magical, Political and Social Universe of Late Medieval Saga Manuscripts. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2017.

Secondary Texts

153

Orri Vesteinsson. The Christianization of Iceland: Priests, Power, and Social Change 1000–1300. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ólafur Halldórsson. Helgafellsbækur fornar. Studia Islandica 24. Reykjavík: Heimspekideild Háskóla Íslands og Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs, 1966. Pansters, Krijn. Franciscan Virtue: Spiritual Growth and the Virtues in Franciscan Literature and Instruction of the Thirteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Páll Eggert Ólason. Íslenzkar Æviskrár frá Landnámstímum til Ársloka 1940. Vol. 3. Reykjavík: Íslenzka Bókmenntafélags, 1950. Pulsiano, Phillip, et al., eds. Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. New York and London: Garland, 1993. Quinn, Judy and Emily Lethbridge, eds. Creating the Medieval Saga: Versions, Variability, and Editorial Interpretations of Old Norse Saga Literature. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2010. Reynolds, Brian K. Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion. Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods. Vol. 1. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012. Robertson, Duncan. Lectio Divina: The Medieval Experience of Reading. Trappist, KY: Cistercian Publications, 2011. Rohrbach, Lena, ed. The Power of the Book: Medial Approaches to Medieval Nordic Legal Manuscripts. Berlin: Nordeuropa Institut, Humboldt-Universität, 2014. Rowe, Elizabeth Asham. The Development of Flateyjarbók: Iceland and the Norwegian Dynastic Crisis of 1389. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2005. Rubin, Miri. Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Russell, Jeffrey Burton. A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997. Salih, Sarah, ed. A Companion to Middle English Hagiography. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2006. Schiffhorst, Gerald J., ed. The Triumph of Patience: Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Orlando: University Presses of Florida, 1978. Shoemaker, Stephen J. Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Sigurdsson, Erika Ruth. The Church in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: The Formation of an Elite Clerical Identity. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Skórzewska, Joanna. Constructing a Cult: The Life and Veneration of Guðmundr Arason (1161–1237) in the Icelandic Written Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Snijders, Tjamke. “Work, Version, Text and Scriptum: High Medieval Manuscript Terminology in the Aftermath of the New Philology.” Digital Philology 2.2 (Fall 2013): 266–96. Southern, Richard W. “The English Origins of the ‘Miracles of the Virgin.’” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 4 (1958): 176–216. Stefán Karlsson. “The Localisation and Dating of Medieval Icelandic Manuscripts.” Saga-Book 25 (1999): 138–58. Steinunn Kristjánsdóttir. Leitin að klaustrunum: Klausturhald á Íslandi í fimm aldir. Reykjavík: Sögufélag, 2017. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Arctic Garden of Delights: The Purpose of the Book of Reynistaður.” In Romance and Love in Late Medieval and Early Modern Iceland: Essays in Honor of Marianne Kalinke, edited by Kirsten Wolf and Johanna Denzin, pp. 279–301. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008.

154

Bibliography

Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Dómsdagslýsing í AM 764 4to.” Opuscula 10. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 40. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Forlag, 1996: 186–93. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Expanding Horizons: Recent Trends in Old Norse-Icelandic Manuscript Studies.” New Medieval Literatures 14 (2012): 203–33. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Manuscripts on the Brain – Árni Magnússon, Collector.” In 66 Manuscripts from the Arnamagnæan Collection, edited by Matthew James Driscoll and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, pp. 9–37. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2015. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Reading Fit for Nuns? The Convent of Reynistaður and Icelandic Literary Milieu in the Fourteenth Century.” In Nuns’ Literacies in Medieval Europe: The Kansas City Dialogue, edited by Virginia Blanton, Veronica O’Mara, and Patricia Stoop, pp. 229–48. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “The Resourceful Scribe: Some Aspects of the Development of Reynistaðarbók (AM 764 4to).” In Tradition and the Individual Talent: Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, edited by Slavica Rankovic, et al., pp. 325–42. Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies, 2012. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “To the Letter: Philology as a Core Component of Old Norse Studies.” Scripta Islandica 60 (2009): 7–22. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. Universal History in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Studies in AM 764 4to. PhD diss., University of London, 2000. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “The World and Its Ages: The Organisation of an ‘Encyclopaedic’ Narrative in MS AM 764 4to.” In Sagas, Saints and Settlements, edited by Gareth Williams and Paul Bibire, pp. 1–12. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir. “Writing Universal History in Ultima Thule: The case of AM 764 4°.” Mediaeval Scandinavia 14 (2004): 185–94. Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir and Emily Lethbridge, eds. New Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of Njáls saga: The historia mutila of Njála. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2018. Sverrir Tómasson. “The History of Old Nordic Manuscripts I: Old Icelandic.” In The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, edited by Oskar Bandle, vol. 1, pp. 793–801. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sverrir Tómasson. “Trúarbókmenntir í lausu máli á síðmiðöld.” In Íslensk bókmenntasaga, 3 vols, edited by Guðrún Nordal, Sverrir Tómasson and Vésteinn Ólason, vol. 1, pp. 265–418. Reykjavík: Mál og menning, 1992. Tomassini, Laura. An Analysis of the Three Redactions of Maríu saga, with Particular Reference to Their Style and Relation to Their Latin Sources. PhD diss., Københavns Universitet, 1997. Tomassini, Laura. “Attempts at Biblical Exegesis in Old Norse: Some Examples from Maríu saga.” Opuscula 10. Bibliotheca Arnamagæana 40. Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1996: 129–35. Turville-Petre, Gabriel. “The Old Norse Homily on the Assumption and the Maríu saga.” Mediæval Studies 9 (1947): 131–40. Turville-Petre, Gabriel. The Origins of Icelandic Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953. Van Deusen, Natalie M. “The Dominican Connection: Some Comments on the Sources, Provenance, and Authorship of Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 113 (2014): 206–21. Van Deusen, Natalie M. “Stitches in the Margins: The Embroidery Pattern in AM 235 fol.” Maal og Minne 2 (2001): 26–42. Walls, Jerry L., ed. The Oxford Handbook Eschatology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Secondary Texts

155

Warner, Marina. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary. New York: Vintage Books, 1983. Waugh, Robin. The Genre of Medieval Patience Literature: Development, Duplication, and Gender. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Wellendorf, Jonas. Kristelig visionslitteratur i norrøn tradition. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 2009. Wenger, Atoine, ed. L’assomption de la très Sainte Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du vie au xe siècle. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1955. Werronen, Sheryl McDonald. “Late Medieval and Early Modern Icelandic Saga Manuscripts.” In Vernacular Manuscript Culture, 1000–1500, edited by Erik Kwakkel, pp. 187–217. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2018. Widding, Ole. “Jartegn og Maríu saga. Eventyr.” In Norrøn fortællekunst: Kapitler af den norsk–islandske middelalderlitteraturs historie, edited by Hans Bekker-Nielsen et al., pp. 127–36. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1965. Widding, Ole. “Marialegender. Norge Og Island.” In Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middeladler, edited by Ingvar Andersson and John Granlund, vol. 11, col. 403. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966. Widding, Ole. “Norrøne Marialegender på europæisk baggrund.” Opuscula 10. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 40. Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1996, 1–128. Widding, Ole. “Om de norrønne Marialegender.” Opuscula 2.1. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæna 25.1. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1961: 1–10. Widding, Ole. “A Preliminary Note on an Anecdote in the Maríu saga.” Opuscula 2. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 1961: 92. Widding, Ole and Hans Bekker-Nielsen. “Elisabeth of Schönau’s Visions in an Old Icelandic Manuscript, AM 764, 4°.” Opuscula 2.1. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25.1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1961: 93–96. Widding, Ole and Hans Bekker-Nielsen. “The Fifteen Steps of the Temple: A Problem in the Maríu saga.” Opuscula 2.1. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25.1. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard, 1961: 80–91. Widding, Ole and Hans Bekker-Nielsen. “An Old Norse Translation of the ‘Transitus Mariae.’” Mediæval Studies 23 (1961): 324–29. Winstead, Karen A. “Saintly Exemplarity.” In Oxford Twenty-First Century Approaches to Literature: Middle English, edited by Paul Strohm, pp. 335–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Wolf, Kirsten. The Legends of Saints in Old Norse-Icelandic Prose. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Wolf, Kirsten. “Old Norse – New Philology.” Scandinavian Studies 65.3 (Summer 1993): 338–48. Zoëga, Geír T. A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Index Abraham 38, 74, 113, 114, 124–126 Adam 94, 124, 126–127, 129 Agatha of Sicily 28 Agnes of Rome 2, 27–28, 52 – Agnesar saga meyjar 52, 135, 137 Albertus Magnus 120 Alexanders saga 28, 133, 143 AM 226 fol. 28, 133 AM 227 fol. 111 AM 232 fol. 26, 31–35, 44, 83, 87, 132 – and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 91–112 AM 233 a fol. 22, 26, 28–31, 35, 132 – and Jóns saga baptista II 68, 76–78, 83, 85–86 – and Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu 118, 126–128 AM 234 fol. 14–16, 22, 26–27, 32–44, 84–85, 131 – and the Four Last Things 118–125 – and the virtues 47–67 AM 235 fol. 26–28, 31, 35–36, 86–87, 118, 129, 131–132 – and the virtues 47–67 AM 240 IV fol. 110–111 AM 240 IX fol. 42, 111 AM 240 XI fol. 7 AM 350 fol. 28 AM 384 fol. (Jón Ólafsson’s katalog) 97 AM 394 fol. (Jón Sigurðsson’s katalog) 97 AM 435 a 4to (Catalogus Codicum pergamenorum Arna Magnæi) 96, 111 AM 633 4to 25, 29, 32–33, 38 AM 634/635 4to 25, 29, 32, 36, 111–112 AM 645 4to 83 AM 655 II 4to 7, 29 AM 655 XIX 4to 7, 29 AM 656 I 4to 27, 31, 88, 107, 118, 125–126 AM 921 V 4to 53 Ambrose of Milan 5, 54, 56, 76 Ambrose of Milan, Pseudo 98 Anne, mother of Mary 6, 30, 32–33, 38, 84 Anselm of Canterbury 8, 92, 120 – Proslogion 120 https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501514142-010

Anthony the Great 26, 49–50, 53, 56–57, 62–65, 119, 123 – Antóníus saga 51–52, 65, 136 Apocrypha 38, 91–92, 95, 97–98, 108, 116–118, 126 Apostles, the 5, 25–27, 55, 78, 88, 101, 106 – and Mary's death 33, 98, 101–102, 105–108 – John the Evangelist 4, 107 – Paul 26–27, 35–37, 57, 62, 64, 84 – Paul and the Third Heaven 123–125 – Paul, the Feast of the Conversion of 37, 57, 84 – Peter 4, 27, 62, 118, 121–122 – Thomas 105–108, 121 Armanda, Franco 116 Arngrímr Brandsson 8, 81–82, 86, 109–110, 128 Árni Lárentíusson 81–82 Árni Magnússon 13–14, 21, 25, 28–29, 50–52, 89, 96, 109, 111 Ashurst, David 117 Augustine of Hippo 2, 8, 26–27, 50, 57, 59–60, 74, 76–77, 85, 98, 120, 128 – Ágústínus saga 51–52, 57, 85, 136 – De Doctrina Christiana 69, 79 – De patientia 55, 60 – Enarrationes in Psalmos 72 – Rule of 54 Augustine of Hippo, Pseudo 77, 92–93, 101, 104 – Liber de assumptione beatae Mariae virginis 92–93, 104 Augustinians, the 1, 8, 17, 26, 28, 40, 42, 50, 76, 79, 85–86, 108–109, 133 Barlaams saga ok Jósaphat 35, 87–88, 95–96, 109, 118, 123, 135 Barndómssaga Kristi 5 Bartholin, Thomas 51 Basil of Caesarea 5 Battista, Simonetta 77 Bede 54, 77, 86, 98 Bejczy, István 48

158

Index

Bekker-Nielsen, Hans 72, 75, 97 Benedict of Nursia 2, 5, 54 – Rule of 54, 98 Benedict of Peterborough 84 Benedict XII, pope 113 Benedictines, the 8, 24, 28, 31, 42, 50, 81, 86–87, 108–111 Benedikt ríki Halldórsson 109 Bergr Gunnsteinsson 84 Bergr Sokkason 81, 109 Bernard of Clairvaux 54–55, 75, 77 – De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae 54, 75 Bernardino of Siena 116 Bethlehem 6, 56 Bible, the – Acts 37, 84 – Corinthians 84, 113, 120, 123 – Daniel, Book of 33, 102 – Douay-Rheims 18, 72, 91 – exegesis and glosses 17, 68–89, 119, 123–124, 132 – Exodus 78, 99, 103 – Genesis 78 – Gospels, the 75, 76, 85, 107, 124 – Gospel of Luke 54, 59, 93, 113 – Gospel of Matthew 38, 40 – interpretation of 34, 57, 68–89, 94 – Isaiah 121 – Job 60, 64 – Joel 120 – Joshua 78 – Kings 78 – Pentateuch 78 – Psalms, the 26, 72, 107 – Psalms, Gradual 34, 55, 70–76, 88, 108 – Psalms, Penitential 72–73 – Revelation, book of/Apocalypse 91, 114, 126 – Song of Songs/Canticles 33, 57, 69–70, 87, 91–94, 104, 107, 118 Bjarnarstaðahlíð 116 Björn Jónsson of Skarðsá 111 Björn Magnússon 109 Blaise of Sebaste 5 Body, the resurrection of 6, 34, 113, 115, 120–121, 128–129 Bonaventure 54, 120 – Breviloquium 120

Boyarin, Adrienne Williams 3 Brynjólfur Sveinsson 52 Bullitta, Dario 109, 126 Bynum, Caroline Walker 116 Caesarius of Arles 98 Carlsen, Christian 117 Catherine of Alexandria 28 Cecilia martyr 2, 27 – Cecilíu saga meyjar 52, 137 Chrysostom, John 8, 77 Classen, Albrecht 115 Clement I, pope 5 Codex Regius 13 Codex Wormianus 111, 143 Cole, Richard 12 Collings, Lucy 83 Comestor, Peter 8, 69, 77–78, 81, 86, 126 Conrad of Saxony – Speculum Beatae Mariae Virginis 6 Cormack, Margaret 4 Cuthbert of Northumbria 5 Dagenais, John 11, 16 David, King 38, 74 Dámusta saga 2 Death 17, 18, 87, 113–129 Desert Fathers, the 49, 56–57, 62–63 Dionysius the Aeropagite 27, 118–119 – Díónysíuss saga 52, 137 Dominic of Evesham 8 Dominicans, the 2, 39, 86, 94 Dotes/Dowries tradition 120–122, 126–127, 129 Drauma-Jóns saga 81 Driscoll, M.J. 12, 20 Drout, Michael D.C. 12 Dunstan 82 Eadmer of Canterbury 8, 120 Eight Beatitudes, the 75 Einar Sigurðsson í Eydalir 5 Elijah 122, 127 Elisabeth of Schönau 43, 92–93, 95, 101, 109–113 Elizabeth, mother of John 6, 30, 32, 34 Enoch 74, 127

Index

Erasmus of Formia 5 Eriksen, Stefka G. 19, 29 Eusebius of Caesarea 77 Eustace/Placidus 5 Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae 7 Eve 72, 94 Exempla 24–25, 59, 67, 82, 88 Eyjafjörður 42–43, 109 Eyjólfur Björnsson 25, 111, 139 Eysteinn Ásgrímsson, Lilja 5 Fairise, Christelle R. 68 Fathers of the Church, the 2, 27, 92, 114 – as sources 37, 54, 69, 76–79, 123 Fides, spes, and caritas – Fídesar saga, spesar, ok Karítasar 27–28, 49, 52, 135, 137 Fifteen Steps to the Temple, the 6, 34, 60, 70–75 Finnur Jónsson 82 Flagellatio Crucis 27, 52, 137 Flateyjarbók 13, 22, 133 Flores beatae Virginis 40 Floribus uirginis 39 Florid Style, the 5–6, 9, 80, 83, 87 Foote, Peter 26, 50–52 Fornaldarsögur 58 Four Elements, the 121 Four Last Things, the/quattuor novissima 18, 113–129 Fourth Lateran Council, the 8 Franciscans, the 2, 54, 116 Gabriel, Archangel 32, 54, 71–72, 105–107 Gambero, Luigi 94 Garðr í Kelduhverfi 22 Gibson, Gail McMurray 2 Gödel, Vilhelm 42 Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the 7 Gottskálk Jónsson í Glaumbæ 22, 140 Gregory the Great 2, 5, 43 – as source 8, 60–61, 75–77, 79, 86, 98, 113, 123 – Moralia in Iob 60 Grímr Hólmsteinsson 17, 27, 30, 68, 76–79, 85, 95 Grønlie, Siân E. 1, 47

159

Gross-Diaz, Theresa 73 Guðbrandur Björnsson 109 Guðbrandur Þorláksson, bishop 5 Guðmundar saga 6, 8, 81–82, 109–110, 143 Guðmundr Arason 82, 109–110 Gyðinga saga 28, 133, 143 Habakkuk 102 Hall, Thomas N. 98 Halldór Benediktsson 109 Hallvard Vebjørrnsson 27 Hallvarðs saga 52, 136 Hamburg-Bremen, Archdiocese of 50 Harrowing of Hell, the 126, 132 Heaven 18, 48, 73, 75, 106, 113–124 – the Virgin Mary's place in 18, 41, 70, 91–108 – third heaven, the 113, 118, 123–124 Heilagra manna søgur 16, 25, 96, 143 Heilagra meyja sögur 25, 143–144 Heizmann, Wilhelm 6, 68, 133 Helgafell 28, 50, 86, 111, 127 Hell 40, 74–75, 113–118, 122–127 Historia actuum apostolorum 84 Historia Scholastica 8, 78, 81, 86 Hólar 24–25, 42, 50, 108–110, 116 Homilies 5, 76, 81, 93, 97–103, 117 Honorius Augustodunensis 8, 69, 77 – Elucidarius 8, 29, 79, 117, 119–122, 125 – Gemma animae 98 – Speculum eccelsiae 78, 86 Hruna Kirkja í Hreppum 24, 111 Hugh of St. Victor 79 Hugh Ripelin of Strasburg 39 Ihnat, Kati 3, 67–68 Image and Likeness of God, the 6, 61, 70–71, 87, 121 Innocent III, pope 86, 119, 122 Intercession (árnaðarorð) 24, 44, 53, 68, 70, 122 Isaiah 127 Ísleifur Gissurarson 50 Íslendingasögur 1, 49, 58–59, 64–65, 80 Jacobus de Voragine 8, 94 – Legenda Aurea 8, 94

160

Index

Jerome 37, 76, 79 – authority of 8, 38–40, 69, 77, 85, 100–101 Jerome, Pseudo 7, 92–93, 99–105, 119 Jerusalem 6, 38, 73–75, 101, 107–108, 120 Jesus – and the Adoration of the Magi 6, 32, 56 – Crucifixion of 60–61, 101, 122, 127–128 – divine and human nature of 6, 61, 94 – and the flight into Egypt 6, 28, 32, 34, 71 – incarnation of 34, 40, 56, 119, 122, 127 – resurrection of 28, 33, 107, 118, 120 – transfiguration of 119–122 – wounds of 71, 74, 121 Joachim, father of Mary 6, 30, 32–34, 38 John of Salisbury 84 John the Baptist 4–5, 27–30, 58, 62, 76–78, 85–87, 127 – Decollatio Johannis baptistae 77 – Jóns saga baptista 27–31, 35, 49, 68, 76–88, 95 Johnston, Michael 19 Jón Eggertsson 43 Jón Ketilsson 95, 109 Jón Ögmundsson of Hólar 4, 26, 27, 37, 49, 57, 108 – Jóns saga helga 51–52, 57, 82 Jón Rúgman Jónsson 42 Jón Sigurðsson 97 Jón Vilhjálmsson Craxton 88, 109 Jónas Kristjánsson 80–82 Joseph of Arimathea, Pseudo 95, 105–107 Josephus, Flavius 7, 77, 85 – Antiquitates Judaicae 7 Kalinke, Marianne 31, 85 Kålund, Kristian 21, 97 Karl G. Johansson 82 Karlamagnúss saga 81 Keyser, Rudolf 96 Kirkjubær 42, 50 – book of 133 Konungasögur 49 Kross saga 28, 31, 52 Kupferschmied, Irene Ruth 7, 36 Kygri-Björn Hjaltason 8, 132

Last Judgment 33–34, 75, 86, 103–104, 113–129 Laurence of Rome 27, 31, 36, 118–119 – Lárentíus saga erkidjákns 31, 52 Lazarus 118, 124–128 Le Goff, Jacques 114 Lectionaries 22, 25–26, 49–50, 59, 62–65 Legendaries 25, 27, 35 Leo the Great 77 Levy, Ian Christopher 69, 79 Liturgy 37–39, 68, 71–78, 86–87, 92, 100–04, 108 Loth, Agnete 53 Magnús Einarsson 25, 138 Magnús Jónsson from Leira 109 Magnus of Orkney 27, 62–63, 87, 118 – Magnús saga Eyjajarls hin skamma 52, 62–63, 81, 87 Máldagar/Church Inventories 1, 4, 22, 24, 26, 31, 79 Manasseh of Judah 74 Manuscripts – abbreviations 19–21, 26, 29 – dating of 21 – decoration 12, 19, 28–33, 35, 41 – layout 9, 12, 19, 29 – localizing of 21, 109 – loss of 13, 20, 52 – marginalia 12, 20, 23. 50, 52–53 – ordinatio 19, 29, 32–33, 45 – production 10, 19–20, 29 – rubrics 12, 19, 28–29, 35–36 – ruling 19, 23 – size 20–26, 50, 86 Már Jónsson 15, 21–22 Margaret of Antioch 27–28, 58, 62–63, 118 – Margrétar saga 52 Marie de France 2 Maríu ævi eða Lífssaga helgustu Guðs móður 5 Maríu saga – A-redaction 7, 26, 32–33, 35, 42, 84 – E-redaction 7, 33–35, 39–41 – St.-redaction 7, 33–35, 38, 43, 69, 83, 126

Index

Maríuvísur 5 Marner, Astrid 77 Martha of Bethany 27–28, 49, 62, 93 Martin of Tours 2, 5, 27, 119 – Marteins saga biskups 49, 58–59 Mary Magdalen 27–28, 49, 62, 128 Mary of Egypt 27, 62–63, 118 – Maríu saga egipzku 52–53, 58 Maurice – Mauritius saga 27, 52 Mayr-Harting, Henry 92 McIlvenna, Una 115–116 McKenzie, D.F. 10 McNamarra, Rebecca F. 115 Mercy (see also Virgin Mary—Mercy of) 53, 58, 61, 74, 127 Michael the Archangel 127 – Michaels saga höfuðengils 81 Michaelskirkja á Dyrhólmum í Mýrdal 26 Möðruvalla 1, 24, 42–43, 133 Mörtu saga ok Maríu Magðalenu 58, 82, 85–87, 118, 126–129 Moses 74, 122, 124, 127 Mount of Olives 120, 125 Mount Tabor 121–122 Mount Zion (Syon) 120 Múli 25 Munificentissimus Deus 91 Munkaþverá 31, 42–43, 50, 81, 108–109 Nativity of John 78 Nazareth 38 Nicholas of Myra 4, 5, 25 – Nikuláss saga erkibiskups 6 Niðaróss 50 Niðrstigningar saga/The Gospel of Nicodemus 28, 118, 124–129 Noah 74 Norðlenski Benedictskólin/The North Icelandic Benedictine School 81, 86–87, 109–111 NRA 78 7, 29 NRA 79 26 N-Town Play, the 72 Ódáinsakr 116–117 Oddi 81

161

Ögmundur Pálsson, Bishop 52 Ólafr Haraldsson 4, 5, 27, 62–63, 118–119 – Ólafs saga hins helga 52, 63–64 Ólafur Guðmundsson í Sauðanes 5 Old Icelandic Homily Book, the (Stock. Perg. 4to no. 15) 5, 97–101, 125 Old Norwegian Homily Book, the (AM 619 4to) 5, 99 Origen 57, 79, 85 Orning, Hans Jacob 19 Paradise 75, 113–127 Paschasius Radbertus 92–93, 98–105, 119 – Cogitis me 92–93, 98–105, 119 Paul the Deacon 93 Peter Lombard 120, 126 Peter of Poitiers 84 Philipp von Seitz, Marienleben 5 Philology 10–14, 19 Pius XII, pope 91 Postola sögur 16, 25–26, 31, 139 – Jakobs saga postola 89, 96 – Jóns saga postola 6, 81, 126 – Matheus saga postola 126 – Páls saga postola 6, 35–36, 49–52, 57, 62, 84 – Páls saga postola and the Four Last Things 118, 122–125, 128 – Pétrs saga postola 6, 52 – Tveggja postola saga Jóns ok Jakobs 6, 81, 107, 118, 125 – Tveggja postola saga Pétrs ok Pals 125 Protoevangelium of James 72 Purgatory 84, 113–114, 118, 122–125 Quinn, Judy 14 Ralph d'Escures 93 Reynistaðarbók (AM 764 4to) 43, 110 Reynistaður 24, 42–43, 108–111 Reynolds, Brian K. 92 Riddarasögur 58, 65 Rímbegla 118 Rindal, Magnus 88 Robertson, Duncan 69 Rómverja saga 28, 133 Rubin, Miri 2

162

Index

Rúgsstöðum í Eyjafirði 43 Runólfr Sigmundsson 76, 85 Russell, Jeffrey Burton 87 Saurbær 26, 108 Schiffhorst, Gerald J. 60 Sebastian martyr 27, 118 – Acts of 98 – Sebastianus saga 52 Seth 126–127 Sex aetates Mundi 74–75 Sin 41, 47–48, 53, 57–59, 70–72, 94, 125 – envy 75 – pride 49, 54, 56, 58, 65, 75 Skagafjörður 42, 109–110 Skálholt 17, 22, 26–27, 42, 47–65, 85, 87, 131 Skarðsbók postulasagna (Codex Scardensis) 13, 29, 83, 133 Slaughter of the Innocents, the 6 Snijders, Tjamke 32 Snorri Sturluson 117 Solomon, King 101, 104 Souls, the fate of 18, 33, 75, 86–87, 94, 101, 113–129 Speculum historiale 8, 78, 81, 86, 94, 110 Stephen the Deacon 5, 98 Stjórn 28, 78–79, 111, 133 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 1 7, 9, 25, 33–35, 39–44, 111–112, 131 Stock. Perg. 4to no. 11 7, 25, 29–35, 38–40, 43–45, 131 – and glosses 69–78, 83–85 Stock. Perg. 8vo no. 5 I 22, 118 Summa Virtutum 78 Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir 5, 14–15 Sveinn Torfason 109 Sverrir Tómasson 79, 81 Sylvester I, pope 5 Ten Commandments, the 61, 75, 103 Tertullian 113, 124 Theodore of Amasea 27, 119 – Theódórs saga 52 Theophilus 44, 139 Thomas Aquinas 60, 94, 120 – Summa Contra Gentiles 120 – Summa Theologica 60, 120

Thomas Becket 2, 27, 50, 82, 84 – Thómas saga erkibyskups 16, 51, 81, 82, 84 Thomas of Hales 6, 93 – Vita Sancte Marie 6, 93 Tomany, Maria-Claudia 87 Tomassini, Laura 8, 41, 68, 83–84 Transitus Mariae 8, 18, 88, 91–112, 113, 119 Trinubium Annae 7, 40, 84, 98 Turville-Petre, Gabriel 1 Unger, C.R. 14–16, 36, 96–97 Valley of Josaphat 33, 100–103, 106, 120, 122 Valþjófsstaðir í Fljótsdal 111 Van Deusen, Natalie M. 11, 86, 128 Van Dussen, Michael 19 Veraldar saga 23, 141 Verelius, Olaus 42–43 Viðey 24, 40, 50, 79 Vincent of Beauvais 8, 69, 77–78, 81, 86, 94 Vincent of Saragossa 2, 5 Virgin Mary, the – and the Annunciation 3–6, 32, 37, 54, 56 – as exemplar 3, 38, 44, 54–56, 58, 93 – as gate to paradise 41 – as reversal of Eve 72, 94 – as temple of the Lord 94 – Assumption of 27, 70–71, 86–87, 91–112, 118, 125 – Ave Maria 71–72 – birth of 3, 6, 32, 36–38, 51, 75 – conception of 3, 6, 70–71 – and con-corporeality with Jesus 91, 94 – death of 22, 33, 91–106, 113 – and dedication to the Temple 6, 32, 38, 75 – feasts of 4, 27, 36–37, 69–72, 76, 86–87, 92, 98–110 – and freedom from sin 6, 70–71, 91 – girdle of 105–107 – Immaculate Conception of 8, 40, 71 – and intercessory power 3, 24, 27, 30, 40, 44, 68–70, 98–100, 122 – and the Magnificat 71, 107 – marriage to Joseph 3, 6, 32 – and the meeting with Elizabeth 6, 32, 34 – mercy of 3, 41, 43, 68

Index

– miracles of 5, 7, 9, 18, 22–30, 35–37, 44, 67–68, 83 – name of 6, 70, 72 – and the painless virgin birth 6, 34 – and perpetual Virginity 39–40, 42, 121 – tomb of 33, 100–107, 120 Virtues, the 27, 47–67, 70, 75, 89 – Charity 67, 74–75 – Fortitude 60, 62, 64 – Humility 3, 26–27, 47–67, 74–75, 100, 122 – Obedience 3, 59, 60, 65 – Patience 26, 47–67, 74–75, 122 – Perseverance 60–64 Visions 114, 116–117 – Leizla Rannveigar 117 – Visio de resurrectione beate virginis Marie 43, 92–95, 101, 109–112 – Visio Pauli/Páls leizla 117 – Visio Tnugdali/Duggals leizla 117 Vísnabók 5 Vita beate Virginis Marie et Salvatoris rhythmica 6, 93

163

Vitae Patrum 26, 28, 49–53, 57, 62, 87–88, 95, 119 Völsunga saga 2 Völuspá 116–117 Warner, Marina 94 Waugh, Robin 60 Widding, Ole 36, 72, 75, 83, 97 William of Auvergne 53 William of Malmesbury 8, 36, 67–68, 77 – Miracula sanctae Mariae virginis 36, 67 Williams, Margaret 60 Winstead, Karen A. 47 Wolf, Kirsten 12, 84 Zacharias 30 Þingeyrar 24, 50, 81, 108, 111 Þorlákur Grimsson 111 Þórlákr Þórhallsson 4, 5, 76 Þorleifur Árnason 52 Þormóður Torfason 51 Þykkvibær 50, 76