Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 506

486
APPENDIX I
Storm (Jomsvikinga saga, 1877, p. ix) long ago suggested that
ultimately they must go back to AJ. I have tried to substantiate
this further in the introduction to Håkonar saga Ivarssonar (pp.
XV—xvii) ; only the most important points will be repeated here.
1) From the postscript to the lists of bishops (App. I 2) it can
be seen that AJ sent them to a person whom he addresses as
magnificentia tua; this was the Chancellor’s title and Huitfeldt
was undoubtedly the recipient. 2) In Th. Bartholin’s Antiqvita-
tum Danicarum . . . Libri tres, Hafniæ 1689, fol. Xxxx 3V, is
cited amongst the manuscripts used in the work: “Arngrimi Jonæ
. . . versio Latina Historiæ Hroari Heimskæ”. This manuscript is
otherwise unknown (certainly burnt in 1728), but undoubtedly
contained the text from which the excerpts in App. I 3 come.
3) AJ translated Jomsvikinga saga for Huitfeldt in Copenhagen
in the winter 1592-3, see above, pp. 171-2, and Vedel’s excerpts
come from this translation.
It is natural therefore to conclude that all the excerpts printed
above (together with the epitomes of Håkonar saga Ivarssonar
and Jvs.) were derived from translations and summaries made
for Huitfeldt by AJ. Most of this work was probably done in
Copenhagen in the winter 1592—3 (cf. above, pp. 40-41). The
lists of bishops were sent from Iceland, probably soon after AJ’s
return, but there is no reason to suppose that any of the other
work was done there (except perhaps in the case of no. 4, see
note). As will be seen from the following notes, a considerable
number of the genealogical excerpts come from Fagrskinna A,
which was doubtless in Huitfeldt’s possession at this time; at any
rate, it was later in the University Library (see Kålund, Katalog
over de oldn.-isl. håndskrifter i det store kgl. bibliotek, 1900,
p. xiii; Fagrskinna, p. vin). As for the sources of the other
excerpts, it can at least be said that there is nothing which makes
it impossible for AJ to have had access to them in Copenhagen.
As was noted above (p. 41), we know that Vedel got historical
material from Huitfeldt, so that it is by no means remarkable
that he should have excerpted translations and synopses which
belonged to Huitfeldt. We even have an indication of this in
the note found on fol. i3r in our manuscript (certainly as it
seems in Huitfeldt’s hånd), see above, p. 171. The end of the