Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1943, Blaðsíða 79

45
(he was a German) must be due to the bishop’s own reasoning, for
Arngrimur does not mention his nationality. Some remarks are then
added about the Reformation which must also be ascribed to the
bishop.
— /o3"6. The year 1261 (also on p. 2712) for the recognition
of King Håkon Håkonarson in Iceland is derived from Crymogæa
p. 199 (misprint for 191). The information that follows goes back
to Crymogæa p. 191 (= 183).
— ro9"10. The reference is to Peder Claussøn’s translation of
Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla and other Sagas of Norwegian Kings
which Worm published in 1633 (Snorre Sturlesøns Norske Kongers
Chronica udsat paa Danske aff Peder Claussøn). The Icelandic
compact with the Norwegian king is mentioned there on pp. 798-99.
— ro14. Zignii must be a misscript. Hondius has Zichmi, Am
grimur Zichini (originally Zichmni).
— ro16"21 (cf. 2810). The story of the expedition to Iceland
planned by the Danish king, Harald Gormsson, is mentioned in
Crymogæa p. 191 (= 183) ; in RS (io17) Haraldi must have been
missed out before Gormeri, whether by the author or a copyist. The
words “dissvadente exercitu” (io19) to which there is no correspond-
ing passage in Crymogæa, and the reference to the Saga of St. Olaf
show, however, that here RS has used another source than Crymo-
gæa. But that source cannot have been OH which does not mention
this event, but must have been the great Saga of Olaf Tryggvason
(see Fommannasogur I, 153), from which the above-mentioned
remark is indeed derived. Which manuscript of the saga Bishop
borlåkur used cannot be decided with certainty. There is reason to
point out, however, that in the i7th century the principal manuscript
of the saga, AM 61 fol., was in the north country within reach of
the bishop1; to this must be added that the manuscript also contains
the saga of St. Olaf, which faet might explain the confusion.
— 2713-14. Haconis Sverris filii is an error as it is King Håkon
Håkonarson (son of Håkon Sverrisson) who is meant. The mistake
must have been in the original, since all the manuscripts agree.
— 2714-15, The so-called “gamli såttmåli” (old agreement) is
meant. It exists in several manuscripts (see Dipi. Isl. I 602-716).
1 See Kålund, Katalog over den Amamagnæanske håndskriftsamling I 40-41 ;
OH pp. 974-77-