The first saga of T. II., in the main, Bene dict of Peter borough's. Correspond ence of T. and to the Miracles particular time this amalgamation may have taken place we cannot tell; but it seems older than the 14th century. See Var. Not. The words" in the end of the story" deserve a special notice. It is clear that when the two sagas were fused into one, the second finished with the fulfilment of the vision already alluded to. King Henry's penitential visit to, and penance at, Thomas's grave, coupled with his victory over the rebellion of 1174, through the saint's intercession, as it was commonly looked upon to have been, form really the natural finale of the historical drama in which the two men had been the chief actors, and are the last events recorded by the contemporary biographers. We take it, therefore, that the composite saga, T., II., 2-184, finished, when the two were amalgamated, with chapter C., with the exception, of course, of the last passage (II., 184, 9-19). As indicated in the clasification above, this composite saga traces its origin, in the main, to two independent sources, namely, Benedict of Peterborough and Robert of Cricklade. It begins with a preface which, up to the lacune (II., 6), is not derived from Benedict (see collation); but the missing portion of it was, no doubt, drawn from that source, because in its coincidences, after the lacune, with fragment E., which has preserved a considerable portion of Benedict's preface to his miracles, a common source is unmistakeable. So also the miracles, which are introduced in T. (II., 2--92), are clearly culled from Benedict only, and follow (though with omissions) his own order. Such, too, is the case with the few which are preserved in E., though they do not quite follow the order of T. (5.) Fragment E., II., 270-284, represents an early Fragm. E. to recension of the beginning of the first saga of T., II., but differs from it considerably. The preface, though preserving a good many points of resemblance in substance, is widely different in the wording. of Benedict of Peterborough. In coming to the miracles, which are all drawn from Benedict, and, as far as they go, correspond to the same in T., the writer introduces them with a translation of Benedict's preface to his collection of miracles. The correspondence between the two prefaces, however, is such, that the former omits some things which are, and adds others which are not, contained in the latter. But where the two correspond, the translation is close and pointed. Like D., this fragment deals with historical matter more abbreviatingly, with matters not historical and with letters more exactly, than T. In this respect the distance between E. and T. seems, on the whole, to be rather greater than between D. and T. These two fragments, we may observe here, are the oldest remnants now left of Icelandic literature on Thomas of Canterbury. Each appears to owe its origin, certainly to a contemporary, if not, indeed, to the same author. The main difference in the style of the two is, that D. is more crisp, rather more curt and incisive, E. more mannered, slightly more straining at rhetoric effect, and generally smoother. In this fragment we meet with the spelling, kviðvr for kviðr; but in the oblique cases of patronomics, of which not a few occur in it, it observes consistent adherence to the old spelling, ur. Thus, in point of penmanship it is the oldest record existing of the T. class; T. itself being the latest. Cricklade's (6.) When the whole list of miracles derived from Robert of Benedict is gone through, we suddenly come, II., saga. 92, 9-11 on this strange declaration: "Now of the great abundance of miracles which God Almighty bestowed on his worthy martyr Thomas we may write no more thereof, speaking by way of similitude, than a few "small drops, that were brought hither by former men, which, in the name of God, we thus begin." The miracles thus announced begin with the one related by Robert of Cricklade in a letter to Benedict of Peterborough. " The following miracles are, for some time, expressly ascribed to Robert as the author, and evidently all are tacitly understood to come from the same source. Not one of these miracles, with the exception of the first, is found in Benedict; some few correspond to William of Canterbury's, as far as the subject is concerned, but are treated in a way which puts it altogether out of question that he could be the source. (For references see the list of miracles at the end of "collation.") Here then is a clear evidence not only of the second saga of T. being a composite one, drawn from two independent sources, one Benedict of Peterborough, the other Robert of Cricklade, but also of the miracle records of the latter having been brought to Iceland by men of old," that is, having apparently been the earliest miracle record that reached the country. Each must once upon a time have formed a separate saga by itself, which some editor found it convenient afterwards. to fuse into one. The strange thing is, however, that of Benedict's large collection of miracles so few should have been included in T., only 17 out of some 286; we can only account for it by supposing that, what we have in T. is only a fragment of what once was a much larger work. C. (II., 260–261), corresponding fragmentarily to T., II., 148-158, we take to be older than the T.; the differences are slight, except in one instance, where C. has decidedly a better and truer reading; með ollu alagalaust entirely unencumbered, i.e., free of all interest (II., 260.) for T.'s með öllum lagalesti (II., 148, 19), which has no definite sense; but our interpretation of the words seems to represent what the scribe had in his mind. This fragment spells lætur (for lætr), II, 261,7, móðr (for móður), 261, 18 (7.) The additamenta to T. (T., II., 184-240) we need notice but briefly. They are evidently the result of a Thomas's scholar's afterthought, who collected them for the purpose of having the history relating to the hero as complete as possible. He had observed, that the canonization had not found its chronological place in the previous narratives, the reason of which was that it was not mentioned by the contemporary biographers, possibly because it was not convenient to do so, since it was a Roman act not solicited by any high authority from England, and took place before the reconciliation of the king with the church. Hence its anachronistic place in T. The account of it, as well as that of the principal events which are included in these additamenta, are drawn from contemporary chroniclers, and probably other sources as well, but are of much later authorship than the rest of T. Though we class them, as we must, as a portion distinct from the rest of the contents of T., they probably never formed a separate saga by themselves. abstracts. (8.) A fragment preserved in the Royal Library of Homiletic Stockholm, No. 2 in the Icelandic collection, already printed by Unger in Helgra-manna sögur, II., 315-320. It is a concise précis of a Thomas saga of which nothing else is preserved, with the exception of the shreds of the first leaf of fragment D. (see p. 1). The original of this abstract has differed from all other known Thomas sagas. The name of the bishop of London Berg Gunn steinsson. Jon Hestr. ing of the younger Henry by making the Archbishop refuse to perform the ceremony on the ground that there ought not to be two kings in the same kingdom at one and the same time. Otherwise it agrees in substance with T. It would seem to have been intended to serve as a commemoration homily for St. Thomas' day, because it winds up, in homily fashion, with an exhortation to the congregation to pray to the saint for various blessings, such as peace, prosperity, good year, wealth, happiness, long life, and eternal salvation. IV. AUTHORS OF THOMAS SAGAS. With regard to the Icelandic authorship of T. and its predecessors our information is very meagre. Two persons, both priests, are certainly mentioned as authors of Thomas sagas. In No. 586, 4to., in the Ama Magn. collection at Copenhagen from the beginning of the 15th century, we read :-Merkiligir tueír Kenne menn bergr gunsteins son z jon hestr, hafa skrífat lifs saugu virðulígs herra thomas cantuaríensís erkibps huorr med sjnum hætte huersu hann þreyttiz fyrir guðs krístnj j. eínglanoj allt til pínjngar z ei puj siðr hefir huorgí þeira aukit grunduoll sialfrar saugunar er stendr j bok þeire er speculum historíalí heiter,' i.e., notable two teachers (priests) Berg the son of Gunstein and Jon "hestr" have written the story of the life of the worthy lord Thomas Cantuariensis archbishop, each in his own way, how he strove for the Church of God in England even unto his passion, and none the less has neither of them added to (?) the groundwork of the story which stands in the book called speculum historiale. This is the oldest record we know of which mentions by name Icelandic translators of Thomas saga. This notice has found its way into a later writing by a rustic savant, Jon Gudmundsson, called the 1 Cfr. Dr. Vigfusson in Félagsrit, xxiii. year, 1863, p. 148. |