Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 80

6o
INTRODUCTION
concludes his remarks on Saxo with the reservation that they are
written to Krag “privatim .... publicé meis verbis non proferen-
dum” (I 170). No direct criticism of Saxo appears in AJ’s
printed works, but neither did they give occasion for any defin-
ite expression of opinion (cf. below, p. 144). There is nothing
to show either the reception which AJ’s critique of Saxo met at
the hånds of Krag or other contemporary Danish historians; we
shall return later to the treatment meted out to AJ’s views by
younger Danish scholars.
Finally, a single feature of AJ’s style will be considered, be-
cause it had its origin in the historical literature of the period.
One of the things which Krag especially asked AJ to collect
was “Apophthegmata et Scita magnorum virorum” (III 100, cf.
also III 102). AJ took a good deal of trouble to comply with
this request, reproducing both individual remarks and whole
speeches. The material in the speeches comes, of course, from his
sources, but usually AJ strives harder to achieve the Latin rhe-
torical form than precision in translation. We find signs of this
tendency, which is a very familiar feature of humanist historio-
graphy, in AJ’s translation of Jomsvikinga saga (see below, p.
130), and it is in full agreement with AJ’s general method: he
seldom translates closely but paraphrases to a greater or less
degree. As a rule, it is true, he abridges, sometimes ruthlessly,
but he has always the Latin style in his thoughts, and it thus
comes to play throughout a not inessential role by the side of the
original Icelandic. This was in complete accord with humanist
practice—how often has it been said of these men that they were
greater stylists than historians? This is not meant to imply that
AJ was a great stylist; his rhetoric is moderate in comparison
with many of his contemporaries and reaches, moreover, its
highest flights in the polemic works; in the narrative parts of
his historical works his style is generally simple and matter-of-
fact, but it cannot be said that it gives any impression of the style
of his Icelandic originals. This, of course, can never have been
his intention either—the rhetorical form of the humanists’ Latin
did not lend itself to such an experiment. AJ begs pardon on
several occasions for his faulty language and speaks of the diffi-
culty of dealing with the Icelandic material in respectable Latin