Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 118

98
INTRODUCTION
used Bjorn’s account and not the older sources on which it was
based, see especially note to III 34i38-34212, from which it will
be seen that AJ was acquainted with Bjorn’s work before 1637.
55. Hungwaka. AJ used Hungrvaka in Brevis comm. and in
Crymogæa, see I i74~10, 5029, 5i26-30, II 9322-~9432, 964-15, and
notes. Some of the material which AJ took from Hungrvaka was
originally derived from Islendingabok, but that the former was
really AJ’s source is shown, for example, by a characteristic error
in the date of Bishop Isleifr’s death (I 5029). AJ’ s source was
certainly also Hungrvaka in those other sections where this
text and Islendingabok have material in common—not the least
argument in favour of this supposition is that elsewhere AJ gives
no sign that he was acquainted with Islendingabok. The error
mentioned above is found in all the principal manuscripts of
Hungrvaka and thus can give no indication of AJ’s particular
source. A variant reading at II 9411 (see note) must ultimately
come from Isleifs joåttr, and it cannot be determined whether it
was in AJ’s manuscript of Hungrvaka or not. We shall however
draw attention to the faet that, as Jon Helgason has pointed out,
the lost original for the two B-manuscripts of Hungrvaka (AM
379, 380 4to, both written for Bishop ]>orlåkur Skulason) was
probably used by Bjorn å SkarSså shortly after 1630 (see Bysk-
upa sqgur I 38—9). It is not improbable that this manuscript was
already at Holar when AJ wrote Brevis comm. and Crymogæa.
j<5. Jons saga ens helga. This saga was used in Brevis comm.
and Crymogæa, see I 5i19-26 ancl H 9433-963 and notes. AJ’s
source cannot have been a manuscript of the B-redaction, but
must have belonged to the A or C class1, probably to the latter,
see especially note to II 9433-963. A manuscript of the C-redac-
tion, AM 392 qto, was written for Bishop I>orlåkur Skulason,
so that in all probability the original of this copy was at Hålar,
or at least in the vicinity, when AJ made use of the saga. The
principal manuscript of the A-redaction (AM 234 fol.) came,
on the other hånd, from Skalholt.
57. Laurentius saga. AJ’s passage on SkurS-Grimr in Crymo-
1 The use of the letters A and B in the edition in Biskupa sogur I is misleading;
B is in faet the most literal redaction, cf. Finnur Jonsson, Litt. Hist. II 395-6, and
J6n Helgason in Corpus cod. Isl. XIX, p. 13.