Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Blaðsíða 115

CHAPTER III
95
27. Kråka-Refs saga (Vatnshyrna). This saga is used in Rer.
Dan. fragm. I 448°—455”; the passage is repeated in a somewhat
abbreviated form and with minor alterations in Gronlandia, II
25223-25912, where further use of the saga is made, II 23b19-21.
Finally, the text was used by AJ in Specimen, III 3382S—3403, a
passage which appears to depend directly on the saga and not on
AJ’s own earlier works. We may be reasonably certain that the
source was Vatnshyrna, even though the text does not offer di-
rect proof of this.
28. Landnamabok. AJ had already made use of Landn. in
Brevis comm., see I 1411-15, 157-20’27, 4928-5 o8, 6513-20, and notes.
After that, he used it frequently in Crymogæa, see e.g. II 15-25,
59, 118—20, 131— 4, 145, 153-6, 161; in Gronlandia, see II
22918, 23319-23719; finally, it forms the basis of his account in
the first part of Specimen. From the order in which AJ names
the first discoverers of Iceland, it may be concluded that he did
not use the Hauksbok version of Landn., and on other grounds
we can assume that it was a manuscript of the Sturlubåk redac-
tion which was his source1. Neither is there anything to show that
AJ knew the Melabåk redaction. He based his account in Speci-
men on Sturlubok, but also made use of other sources (Hauks-
båk, Bjorn å SkarSså)—these present special problems, whose
discussion at this point would take us too far afield; reference
may be made to the introduction to Specimen below. Here we
shall only draw attention to the faet that in both Brevis comm.
and Crymogæa AJ invariably has the name-form Naddocus (I
159’14, II 1510*20, 2137), whilst in Specimen both Naddocus and
Naddodus (III 17913) occur. This must be due to the influence
of a second source. The form Naddocus, or any corresponding
Icelandic form, is not however to be found in any known manu-
script of Landn. If AJ really took this form from the manuscript
which was his authority, then this manuscript must since have
been lost; in the introduction to Specimen we discuss in more
detail the question of whether AJ’s manuscript of Sturlubok was
the Resenian vellum or another manuscript containing the same
1 J6n Jéhannesson (GerSir Landnåmabdkar, 1941, pp. 74-5, cf. 54-5) has shown
that in all probability the order Naddoddr-Gar3arr-F16ki was only in the Sturlubok
redaction and not in Melabdk.