Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 167
BREVIS COMMENTARIUS
147
were in faet the least independent, since almost all their material
was borrowed from the works of others. This might also indi-
cate, as was mentioned earlier, that AJ had vague or mistaken
ideas about the date of composition of certain of the works. It
should though be noted that AJ refers to the dates when Krantz
and Miinster died (I 712S), so that their relative positions must
at least have been clear to him. The relative order in which he
imagined Ziegler, Olaus Magnus and Gemma Frisius stood is
less certain. The works of all these existed in later editions, which
could have caused confusion.
Brevis comm. is divided into two main sections, the first deal-
ing with the country, the second with its inhabitants. In the first
part AJ deals especially with false statements concerning the fol-
lowing matters: the situation, size and population of the country
(I 12-14, 16—17), the country’s name and the Thule-question
(I 15-16), Hekla and other volcanoes and the fantastic stories
connected with them (I 17—29), polar-ice and related topics (I
16, 29-33), strange springs (I 33-8), sea- and land-animals and
the growth of grass (I 17, 38-42). The second part falis into
two sections: in the first AJ deals with the same authors as in the
preceding main part (I 43-72), and thereafter he turns to Gories
Peerse. In the first section he is concerned with refuting false
assertions on Iceland’s history (I 44—58, 65, 71), and the way
of life and morals of the Icelanders (I 58-65, 72; 66—71). In
controverting Peerse he deals only with the last two topics: the
first three calumnies in Peerse’s poem concerned the morals of
the people (I 72-6), the remainder their way of life (I 76-81).
Details of the controversy which we have here sketched in out-
line will be given in the notes. We need only observe further at
this point that AJ uses four kinds of argument in his discussion:
1) reference to Icelandic sources or to his own or others’ ex-
perience; 2) reference to contemporary scientific literature, espe-
cially for explanations of physical phenomena; 3) evidence that
the phenomena in question were not peculiar to Iceland; 4) rhe-
torical arguments designed to reduce the assertions of his oppo-
nents ad absurdum by demonstrating self-contradictions or by
ridiculing their statements.
AJ’s use of Icelandic sources will be treated in greater detail