Gripla - 01.01.1984, Qupperneq 294

290
GRIPLA
that paper manuscripts of the Poetic Edda, and Árni Magnússon’s collections of
material about Icelandic literary history, which could have included commentaries
on poetry, were destroyed in the fire of 1728. Secondly, unknown material may
still come to light. In his Recensus, Páll Vídalín mentions a commentary on Bryn-
hildarljóð, now unknown, by the Rev. Þorsteinn Björnsson of Útskálar. Two
manuscripts of the commentary on Brynhildarljóð by Björn of Skarðsá, Thott
1491 and Nks. 1878 a, 4to, contain additional material not found in other manu-
scripts, and in them is also an abbreviation of a name which may refer to this
Þorsteinn. These manuscripts also mention that Jón Jónsson of Helgavatn had pro-
duced commentaries on runes. Jón Olafsson Grunnvíkingur lists authors of works
on runes in his essay on runes. Although we do not know about the content of
these works, it is possible that they were written as a result of Brynjólfur’s interest
in Brynhildarljóð.
Examples have been given above of Brynjólfur’s role in stimulating literary
scholarship in Skálholt. Bishop Þorlákur Skúlason of Hólar began to collect old
literary works by ordering the copying of manuscripts about 1630, and Brynjólfur
began to collect old manuscripts as soon as he was ordained bishop in 1639. An-
other example of contacts between these two centres of learning in Hólar and
Skálholt is that Samantektir um skilning á Eddu by Jón Guðmundsson lærði, which
was written for Bishop Brynjólfur of Skálholt, also exists in a shortened version by
Björn of Skarðsá, who is known to have written books for Bishop Þorlákur of
Hólar.
IV
This discussion has up to this point centred on the literary activity that took place
after Brynjólfur received Völsunga saga in 1641, and it remains to examine the
complete copies of Sigurdrífumál. The main study of them is by Sophus Bugge,
and Jón Helgason, who studied the relationships between the paper manuscripts,
concluded that one of them, AM. 161, 8vo, is closest to the copy that was made
from the parchment original (the Codex Regius). The writer of that copy also had
a copy of Brynliildarljóð from Völsunga saga. There appears to be no connection
between the paper copies of Sigurdrifumál and the copy by Magnús Olafsson of
Laufás in R:702. Copies of Völsunga saga do not seem to have begun before
Brynjólfur received the manuscript of the Edda.
In three of the manuscripts with complete copies of Sigurdrífumál there is also
the commentary on Brynhildarljóð by Björn of Skarðsá, and in one of them, AM
161, 8vo, it is even more concise than elsewhere. Is the commentary preserved
there in its original form? Is it possible that somebody made a commentary on
Brynhildarljóð for Björn, and that he subsequently used that commentary himself?
Did that person have the Codex Regius and copy from it material that was related
to Völsunga sagal Why then did Björn not use material from the Codex Regius
in his commentary on Brynhildarljóðl The verses in Hávamál that Björn refers to
indicate the use of the Codex Regius or of copies of Hávamál that could have been
made from the Codex Regius independently of the copying of Sigurdrífumál. Jón
Helgason considers it likely that the gathering was lost when it was removed from