Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1991, Síða 135

123
to claim that a direct dependence exists between the two texts only on
the basis of some pictures. A close investigation might probably reveal
significant aspects of the diffusion of the OIP.
This evidence and the faet that both milvus and accipiter were
unfamiliar birds in Iceland, may offer two possible alternative explana-
tions for the correspondence of details between the descripdon of OIP
gieda and accipiter. a) as aconsequence of the similarity between the two
birds, the author could have endowed milvus with a symbolism usually
connected with accipiter67; b) the scribe might have dropped from the
model the lines concerning the allegorical meaning distinetive of
milvus because of their proximity to the following section on accipiter,
overlapping in this way the natures of the two birds. Whichever
interpretation we adopt, it will not invalidate our reading which implies
the following:
1) The mention of the Hebrew version of Psalm 103,17 does not
necessarily derive from a Psalm commentary68. Quoting from the Bible
is not a distinetive feature of the OIP: the work is to be related to the
genre to which it belongs, where each item often begins with a biblical
quotation, not necessarily from the Psalms, followed by the nature of
the animal concemed and the spiritual lesson derived therefrom69. It
seems obvious that chapter 16 of the OIP is based on texts dealing with
beasts which quote the Hebrew version of the Psalter in order to
introduce milvus. Clearly, there is some similarity between scriptural
commentaries and Physiologus texts, where the animals to be explained
are the same.
67 Cf. Yapp, Birds in Medieval Manuscripts, p. 33: ‘The term »hawk« was probably used
also, now and then, in an inclusive sense for all the diumal raptors, including buzzards
and kites, but not eagles’.
68 J. W. Marchand, ‘An Old Norse Fragment ofa Psalm Commentary’, Maal og Minne,
1976, pp. 24-29 holds that the OIP contains fragments of Psalm commentaries in the
following chapters: A. 4, B. 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, and comments: ‘Lack of recognition of this
faet has inhibited research on the Old Icelandic Physiologus, for mueh of the commenta-
ry could not be understood until it was recognized that it was a commentary’ (p.
25).
69 Even confining ourselves to the work in question, a doser look at it will prove that
Bible quotations are numerous as well: B. 3, onager: I Petr. 5, 8; B. 10, honocentaurus: II
Tim. 3, 5; B. 15, salamandra: Prov. 30, 28; B. 19, elephans: a reference to Macc. I, 6, 30.
On the subject in general, cf. F. Zambon, ‘Teologiadelbestiario’, Museum Patavinum, 2,
1984, pp. 23-51, atp. 26.