Gripla - 01.01.1984, Síða 293

KONUNGSBÓK EDDUKVÆÐA
289
it are known. Bugge and Guðbrandur Vigfússon made the attribution to Björn
because of a reference in it to his commentary on Völuspá. Björn’s commentary
on Völuspá is dated variously to 1644 or 1646. Bugge’s arguments have often been
misunderstood, with the result that Að fornu has been dated to 1642.
The author’s forthcoming edition of Samantektir um skilning á Eddu will in-
clude an edition of Að fornu, where it will be argued that it is the work not of
Björn of Skarðsá, but of Jón lærði Guðmundsson. The reasoning behind this attri-
bution consists of two types of evidence: external evidence, i.e. what is known
about the author from the writings of others, and internal evidence, i.e. similarities
in the content of Að fornu and of other works by Jón lærði. The chief pieces of
external evidence are the statements by Þormóður Torfason in letters dated 1691
and 1692 to Guðmundur Ólafsson in Sweden that Jón lærði and Björn had each
written commentaries on Brynhildarljóð. The result of this correspondence was
the copy made by Ásgeir Jónsson (Papp. fol. 38), containing the commentary with
Björn’s name in the title, and the unattributed Að fornu. This would therefore
appear to be Jón lærði’s work, especially as it is improbable that two so completely
different works on the same subject could be by the same man. The strongest
internal evidence consists of extensive similarities with other works by Jón lærði.
Að fornu and Tíðfordríf both contain the second part of stanza 2 of Völuspá with
the same variations from other texts of the poem. Að fornu contains a reference to
Sólarljóð, and in a copy of Snorra Edda by Jón lærði in the Bodleian Library in
Oxford (Marsh 114) there is the same reference in connection with the same word.
Stanza 60 of Völuspá in Samantektir and in Að fornu appears in the same version.
Að fornu appears to have been composed in response to a commission, and the
apology for the deficiency of the commentary is worded in the same way as in
Samantektir. Jón lærði wrote many works for Bishop Brynjólfur Sveinsson, and it
seems extremely likely that the commentaries by Björn of Skarðsá and Jón lærði
were written at his request after 1641.
In Notce uberiores Brynjólfur is quoted as saying that he had tried to gather
information about runes from his contemporaries, and in a letter to Worm in 1649
Brynjólfur wrote that there was practically no-one left alive who knew about
runes, since Arngrímur Jónsson lærði was dead and Jón lærði and Björn of Skarðsá
were in their old age. It is possible that Brynjólfur was here listing those from
whom he had received information about runes (the word runes here covering not
only runic letters, but also magical formulae of the sort contained in Sigurdrífu-
mál).
Sveinn Jónsson of Barð mentions Brynhildarljóð and a commentary on it in
letters to Worm from 1642 and 1643, and part of his translation of Völsunga saga
has survived.
Works written about Völsunga saga for Brynjólfur include the translation by
Torfi Jónsson and the commentaries by Björn of Skarðsá and Jón lærði on Bryn-
hildarljóð. Sveinn Jónsson’s translation possibly belongs on this list, and it is also
possible that Arngrímur Jónsson lærði wrote something on Brynhildarljóð, even
though there is no surviving evidence.
There are two reasons to doubt that this list is exhaustive. Firstly, it is known
Gripla VI — 19