Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1943, Side 20

XVIII
which would seem to support the explanation here given. It is not
inconceivable that precisely the appearance of the Specimen may
have given rise to a wish in certain circles in Denmark to obtain
other opinions from Icelanders on Icelandic subjects. For Arngrimur
had here opposed a royal historiographer on a question which had
already been the subject of considerable discussion and in which
his contemporaries were evidently much interested. In the Notæ
uberiores to his edition of Saxo (1645) Stephanius had adopted the
same view as Arngrimur Jonsson in the Thule question, and Ole
Worm agreed with them. It was then only natural to go to the
Icelandic bishops, one of which (Brynjolfur Sveinsson) enjoyed a
considerable reputation in Denmark for his learning, while the other
had for many years been Ole Worm’s close friend and faithful
correspondent.
However, such a purely academic interest was hardly the only
reason for Krag’s inquiry. We may recall that in the spring of
1647 he had helped to procure for the Icelandic district judge and
revenue officer Gisli Magnusson a monopoly of the mining of sul-
phur in Iceland, and it may be conjectured that Gisli Magnusson
sent him his proposals for reforming the economic conditions of
Iceland in 16471. This occupation with Icelandic affairs would seem
to indicate that Otte Krag’s motives were not entirely literary and
historical. In this connection it may not perhaps be out of place to
recall the negotiations in progress a couple of years earlier about
the pledging of Iceland to merchants of Hamburg. The negotiations,
however, came to nothing, partly on account of the representations
of the Icelandic Trading Company, partly owing to the conclusion
of peace with Sweden in 1645, which rendered the lack of money
of the Danish crown less acute2. These negotiations may well be
conceived to have intensified the interest of Danish authorities in
the economic position of Iceland and its possibilities as a source of
revenue, and as a functionary in the Chancellery Otte Krag had the
best opportunity of keeping abreast of all these matters. No con-
clusive result can be arrived at in these questions; the explanations
1 See Wormii Epistolae II, 1751, 852-53; cf. Safn Fræøafélagsins XI, 1939,
28-29 and 44.
2 See J6n ASils, Einokunarverzlun Dana å Islandi, 1919, pp. 106-108 (= Den
danske Monopolhandel på Island, 1926-27, pp. 113-16).