Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 140
120
INTRODUCTION
issue is that F and H record at the end of the saga the tradition
that Bui turned into a dragon; since this is also in Jomsvikinga
drapa, it must be counted as part of the original traditional story
of the Jomsvikings. According to Hempel, this feature is not to
be found in J and 510. But he has failed to notice that it is pre-
sent in J (I 13619-21), only in a different position from that in
FH.—Hempel’s point no. 9 concerns a remark in the 291-group
(291, 89“) and in Fms. I 160 to the effect that the Jomsvikings
confirmed Sigvaldi’s declaration to King Sveinn. This is lacking
in J, 510, OT(A). It is not difficult however to believe that such
a remark had been added in the common original of the 291-
group, and its presence in Fms. I proves nothing, as remarked
above, since the passage in question was not derived from Gunn-
laugr munkr.—Finally, there is Hempel’s point no. 19, the ac-
count of the Emperor Otto’s consultation before the attack on
the Danavirki and his turning to Olaf Tryggvason for advice.
Of this we have the most detailed account in Fms. I 126-7, which
is certainly derived from Gunnlaugr munkr, and must in conse-
quence be considered the basis for the narrative in Jvs. also.
From this one sees that Olaf Tryggvason was present during
the whole proceedings, even though he was only approached for
advice at the end. The same is apparently the case in 291, 2812,
although it is not explicity stated. Now, Hempel is of the opinion
that OT(A) 50 14-15 and J (I 10526) give one to understand that
Olåfr was not summoned until the end of the meeting, when all
the others had given up. In OT(A) it says: “Er hann (the Em-
peror) nu mjqk åhyggjufullr um sin vandkvæSi; lét hann f)å kalia
til sin Ala”; cf. J: “Vocato itaqve ad se Olao, rem ei omnem
exponit”. Here we need only point out that a little earlier in
OT(A) it says expressly (506-7) : “Keisari ok Olåfr ok aSrir
hqfSingjar gera nu råS sin”. From this it follows that the basis
for the text here was undoubtedly the same as in Fms. I. Hempel
has simply allowed himself to be confused by the expression
“kalla til sin”, which even alone would still not necessarily imply
that Olaf was not already present. The phrase in J proves
nothing in reality either, for the account is there greatly compres-
sed, so much so that a meeting between the Emperor and his men
is not even mentioned, and before the sentence quoted above on