Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 204

184
NOTES
works are preserved at all is due solely to Th. Bartholin, who
had a copy made for his own use, still preserved in tomi Bartho-
liniani in the Royal Library, Copenhagen. This manuscript is the
basis of the present edition.
Manuscript Don. var. 1 fol., Barth. XXV, consists of two
parts, each with its own pagination, but (later) bound in a single
volume. At the beginning an engraved portrait of AJ has been
inserted, see Introduction, p. 29. The first part (pp. 1-244) con-
tains Supplementum Hist. Norv. and Appendix (— I 141—329) ;
the second part (2 + 108 pp.; the title-page, on whose recto side
the passage I 3331-9 is also written, is not included in the number-
ing) contains Rerum Danicarum fragmenta and Ad Catalogum
RR. Sveciæ . . . annotanda (= I 33I—474)- The two parts are
the work of two different writers, neither of whom was an Ice-
lander, as the numerous mistakes in the reproduction of Icelandic
name-forms show. Both hånds are clear and practised, but there
are many errors, some of a kind calculated to cast doubt on the
writers’ proficiency in Latin. The copies do not seem to have
been checked against their originals; there are a few corrections
at the beginning, made in a later hånd, apparently from the eight-
eenth century (see I 15215, i7°2> 17631’32, 22319) ; at one point
(I 3373) Årni Magnusson has made a correction, which shows
at least that he had had the manuscript in his hånds, undoubtedly
when he worked for Bartholin. He has expressed his opinion of
the manuscript with his usual terseness in AM 1045 4to: “vitiose
exaratum est”.
Bartholin had had the copies made as part of his preparations
for his work Antiqvitates Danicae, published in 1689. On one
occasion in this book he also quotes Supplementum, see note to
I 17 3 25-35; the quotation shows that it was not the copy but cer-
tainly the original which he used; probably Arni Magnusson
played his part here, for as is well known he acted as Bartholin’s
amanuensis during the preparation of Antiqvitates. We may pre-
sume that the preserved copies were made from AJ’s original,
though this is by no means certain, since other copies were in
faet to be found in the University Library at that time. The many
obvious errors make it unfortunately extremely probable that
there are many others which we are not in a position to demon-