Gripla - 20.12.2014, Page 70

GRIPLA70
the seventeenth century was by no means the same language as that of
early Danish runestones.23
nevertheless, the two maintained a correspondence and helped each
other in the ways that they could. Arngrímur translated, sent Worm docu-
ments and other materials (including an important early manuscript of
the Prose Edda, commonly called Codex Wormianus or Wormsbók), and
read over and commented on some of Worm’s writings.24 Worm used his
political and social connections to help ensure that Arngrímur was paid
for his work collecting sources.25 He also sent preserved ginger and medi-
cal advice.26 the two never met in person, but they exchanged letters and
favors for some twenty years.
typical for the period, Worm and Arngrímur shared a rather literal
approach to medieval sources, what they were useful for, and how they
should be evaluated.27 Annals especially were most often viewed simply as
a way to help date events. they were sometimes referred to as chronolo-
gies.28 one exception to a general faith in medieval sources and the writ-
ten word can be found in Arngrímur’s doubts about the reliability of Saxo
grammaticus (d. 1220), which probably stemmed more from a reflexive
belief in the superiority of Icelandic sources than from reflection on source
criticism.29
23 Arngrímur himself explained to Worm that because of associations between runes and
magic, many people with knowledge about runes were too afraid to share it, cf. Ole Worm’s
Correspondence, 29 (letter 18, 18 August 1632).
24 Ole Worm’s Correspondence, 10 (letter 5, 4 September 1628).
25 Worm was among other things, personal physician to the Danish king Christian IV.
26 jakob Benediktsson’s introduction to Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta, 4:28; Ole
Worm’s Correspondence, 36 (letter 17, 27 August 1633).
27 Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta, 4:52.
28 In one of the letters that suggests that Worm had the annal manuscript from Arngrímur by
1641, for instance, the annal is referred to as chronologia, as a chronology, which was used
to check facts and establish dates for particular events; see the letter from St. J. Stephanius
to Ole Worm in Ole Worm’s Correspondence, 357 (letter 39, 4 December 1641).
29 Arngrímur was particularly upset by claims that Iceland could be identified with the thule
of classical antiquity, cf. Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta, 4:59. He was also quite
dismissive of Adam of Bremen, cf. Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta, 4:58–59.