Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1943, Qupperneq 73

39
i-i 2) and the literature there cited. The most recent treatment of
the subject, Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s Ultima Thule, New York 1940,
has not been accessible to me.
Although Arngrimur Jonsson had already shown in Brevis comm.
(p. 8 r-v), in more detail in Crymogæa (pp. 12-14), but most
thoroughly in Specimen (pp. 89-121) that Iceland could not be the
Thule of antiquity, both bishops here are of the opposite opinion.
Bishop Brynjålfur refers to his lost Saxo-Conjectanea (cf. above
pp. XX-XXII) for the grounds for his belief, upon which we are
thus debarred from expressing any opinion. The short piece inserted
in the next paragraph (p. 2417'22) about Saxo’s view of the matter
would, however, seem to indicate that Brynjolfur attached most
weight to the evidence of Saxo and other medieval authors.
Bishop borlåkur, on the other hånd, goes somewhat more closely
into the matter, referring especially to Pliny and Bede. But Bede
he only knows from the references in the Landnåmabok, probably
from the Hauksbok (cf. Hauksbok, 1892-96, p. VI) or Bjom
Jonsson’s (of SkarSså) adaptation of the Landnåmabok. Nor has
Bede anything new on this subject beyond the authors of antiquity;
he is only cited in the Landnåmabok because no earlier source was
known. RS in addition cites GuSmundar saga biskups (p. 415) by
Abbot Arngrimr (see Biskupa sogur II, 1878, p. 54). According to
Årni Magnusson a manuscript of that saga (AM 398, 4to) was
copied for Bishop borlåkur (cf. Kålund’s catalogue). It is worth
noticing that RS does not mention Arngrimur Jånsson’s Specimen,
where his fullest argumentation on the Thule problem was found;
whereas Crymogæa is constantly cited in the discussion. This looks
very much like a subreption as it cannot be conceived that Bishop
borlåkur did not know the Specimen (cf. his knowledge of Pontanus’
work p. 45). In this connection we may point out that the son of
Bishop borlåkur, Bishop borSur borlåksson, adhered to his father’s
view that Iceland was the Thule of antiquity and went more thor-
oughly into the question in his description of Iceland1 *.
P. 43. Sinesius: The reference is only understood in connection
with Hondius § 2: “an Thule aliqua fuerit, dubitat Sinesius”. Cf.
Introduction p. XXVI. The statement concerned occurs in Sinesius
1 Theodorus Thorlacius: Dissertatio chorographico-historica de Islandia, Wit-
tebergæ 1666, pp. B ir-B 4V.