Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1943, Page 19

XVII
shall not be reported here, it will be sufficient to note that it is in the
main based on earlier descriptions of Iceland, among these not least
that of Gories Peerse, and moreover embellished with a great number
of exaggerated or invented narratives. The author pretends to have
been in Iceland in 1563—64, but it can be proved that this is untrue;
probably he never was in Iceland, but derived the core of his fantastic
stories from seamen.
Besides the above-mentioned polemical writings Arngrimur had
in 1609 issued his principal work, Crymogæa, a historical descrip-
tion of the Icelandic people with extracts from the ancient literature
and a survey of the later history of the country. In the introduction
he gives a brief account of the situation of the land, its earliest
names, and its first settlements. The latter subject, however, was
resumed by Arngrimur for a more thorough treatment in Specimen
Islandiæ historicum et magna ex parte chorographicum, Amstelodami
1643. This book had been written already in 1633 as a reply to
J. I. Pontanus, historiographer to the Danish king, who in Rerum
Danicarum historia (1631) had maintained that Iceland was
identical with the Thule of antiquity. In the Specimen Arngrimur
persists in his old view and adds a number of new arguments.
Arngrimur opens his discussion with a thoroughgoing review of the
settling of Iceland to show that the country had been quite un-
inhabited down to the Viking age. For various reasons the book was
not printed until after the death of Pontanus, so that the latter
could not reply to the new arguments.1
The reason why Otte Krag entirely fails to take account of all
this literature in his extract can hardly be that these writings were
quite unknown in Denmark in the 1640’s. Even if Krag himself
did not know the works of Arngrimur, he might easily have gained
information about them from others, e.g. from Professor Ole Worm
or from the historiographer St. I. Stephanius. It would seem a more
likely explanation that though the writings of Arngrimur were indeed
known, it was desired to have the opinions of other scholars on the
same subjects. At the same time it must be remembered that Arn-
grimur himself was still among the living at this time, though certain-
ly an old man, but evidently the inquiry was not addressed to him,
1 See P. E. Olason, Menn og menntir IV 164—75.
Two Treatises on Iceland
2