Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1965, Síða 299

relationship bctween the Ågrip and the Latin chronicles, the Historia
Norvegiæ and the Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium, is
to be explained. Most scholars (Storm, Nordal, ASalbjarnarson, and
others) agree that the relationship between the Ågrip and Theodoricus’s
work must be due to the faet that the author of the Ågrip utilized the
Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensium as his source, but a few
scholars (among them Jonsson) have maintained that the cases of agree-
ment between the two works must be explained by a source common to
them having been used. The relationship between the Ågrip and the
Historia Norvegiæ is explained by most scholars by the authors of the
two works having used the same written source. Bugge and Bemtsen
considered this source to have been West Norse, whereas Nordal and
ASalbjarnarson consider it to have been Latin. Gjessing has referred to
Sæmundr’s and Ari’s works, and Koht and Jonsson also spoke in favour
of Sæmundr as source, whereas Schreiner has referred to Ari. Storm, too,
was of opinion that Ari’s lost work must be considered a source common
to the Ågrip and the Historia Norvegiæ, but he thought that the author
of the Ågrip furthermore had used the Historia Norvegiæ direetly. Fin-
ally Beyschlag has reached the conclusion that the relationship between
the Ågrip and the Latin chronicles is not at all due to a literary con-
nexion, but should be explained by utilization of related oral traditions.
The theory advanced by Beyschlag should no doubt be rejected. By
use of related oral traditions it is possible to explain sporadic cases of
agreement such as the similarities between the Historia Norvegiæ and
Theodoricus’s work, but not such comprehensive parallels as those be-
tween the Ågrip and the Latin chronicles, the cases of agreement com-
prising detailed, sometimes erroneous information, similarity in outline
and phraseology and individual points of view. In such cases written
connexion must necessarily have existed.
A comparison between the texts of the three works shows that the
representation in the Ågrip in some places appears as a merging of two
traditions, which closely correspond to the Historia Norvegiæ and Theo-
doricus’s work. In several cases repetitions in the Ågrip furthermore in-
dicate that the author combined various sources. The faet that the cases
of agreement between the Ågrip and the Historia de antiquitate regum
Norwagiensium are numerous and occur practically throughout the
whole of the period dealt with by Theodoricus, makes it improbable
that the relationship between these two works can be due to utilization
299