Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1965, Side 301

time the Ågrip in this place shows verbal agreement with Snorri’s Oldfs
saga and with a brief survey of the Kings of Norway from Halfdan Svarti
to Saint Olaf, which under the title of Konungatal i Noregi is recorded
in the Flateyjarbok. A comparison with other parts of West Norse hi-
storiography shows that the survey mentioned cannot have been built on
the extant works. On the contrary, a number of circumstances, especially
the calculation of the reign of Earl Hakon, make it justifiable to consider
it as an extract of Ari Porgilsson’s æfi Noregs-konunga. From this, again,
it follows that the descriptions corresponding to the Konungatal of the
wretched conditions during Harald Greyskin’s reign which are given in
Snorri’ Oldfs saga, the Ågrip, and the Historia Norvegiæ, must all be
considered to be based on Ari’s båk, and the other cases of agreement
between the Historia Norvegiæ and the Ågrip should undoubtedly be
explained in the same way. As it can also be rendered probable that the
cases of agreement between the Historia Norvegiæ and Oddr Snorrason’s
Saga Oldfs Tryggvasonar are due to use of Ari’s work, the final result
is that the relationship between the Historia Norvegiæ and the rest of
West Norse historiography must everywhere be explained by Ari’s bok
forming the common basis.
At determination of the Konungatal recorded in the Flateyjarbok as
an extract of Ari’s work, light is also otherwise thrown on Ari’s historical
writings. The view of the Prince as responsible for the fertility of the
country and the objective description of the Princes’ looks, which are
characteristic features in later West Norse historiography, can now with
great certainty be dated back to Ari, and it is also possible to establish
the lengths of the reigns ascribed by Ari to the Norwegian Princes from
Halfdan Svarti to Saint Olaf. Like Sæmundr Ari seems to have reckoned
with periods in which the Princes were in power alone. This agrees with
the information given in the Konungatal and the Historia Norvegiæ, while
Snorri Sturluson, without setting aside the fundamental features of Ari’s
chronology, tried to reconcile Ari’s information with the deviating in-
formation found in the Fagrskinna.
It appears as the main result of the present investigations that the
author of the Ågrip must be assumed to have utilized Ari’s as well as
Theodoricus’s works as sources, but certain circumstances suggest that
the author had another two works on the history of the Norwegian kings
at his disposal. As stated above, the mention in the Ågrip of Harald
Fairhair’s sons must be considered to have been based on two sources
301