Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 448

NOTES
428
from the original. Neither is it likely that AJ borrowed Flat. for
use in the composition of Specimen, since he only quotes one
passage from it. It cannot be determined whether he used Vatns-
hyrna itself or had other texts of Kjalnesinga saga and Kråka-
Refs saga. He must certainly however have had direct access to
the other sources. On these it will suffice to refer to the notes on
the passages cited and to the Introduction, ch. III.—In addition,
AJ several times cites Peder Claussøn’s versions of Icelandic
sources, both from his translation of the Kings’ sagas and his
description of Norway. It was natural for AJ to do this, since
both works had recently been published in Copenhagen.
The question of AJ’s source for his synopsis of Landn. is more
complicated. It has hitherto been believed that Hauksbåk was
the basis for it (see Hauksbok, p. vi), and this opinion was
founded on AJ’s own words (III 3415-13), when he says of this
work: “quod ab autore Hauks Bok nornen accepit; quem in
priore hujus speciminis potissimum parte secuti sumus autorem”,
—and adds that the book had been loaned for this purpose by
Ari Magnusson of Ogur. We shall come back to this statement
later.
The facts of the case are in reality quite different. A compari-
son of AJ’s text with the manuscripts shows beyond all doubt that
the basis for AJ’s work was a manuscript of the Sturlubåk-redact-
ion. The arrangement and sequence of the chapters are alone
sufficient proof of this, apart from the faet that AJ includes in
their places chapters from Sturlubok that are lacking in Hauks-
bok and conversely omits chapters which are in Hauksbok but
not in Sturlubok. For this reference can be made to the notes, see
e.g. III 17913, 18810—18g22, I90s-i9312, 19512, 19936, 2023-17,
2i814-2i96, 24i29-34, 24721-27, 2 6537-2 66s. Further, a number of
AJ’s readings agree only with Sturlubok, cf. p. 434 below. This
conclusion is also consonant w'ith the faet that in his earlier works
AJ had used a manuscript of the Sturlubok-redaction of Landn.
(see Introduction, ch. III no. 28). On the other hånd, AJ has
numerous readings which do not agree with Sturlubåk; many of
them agree with Hauksbok and still more agree with readings in
manuscripts of SkarSsarbåk. This last is, as we know, a compila-
tion made by Bjorn Jonsson a SkarSså from Hauksbok and