Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Page 55

2.2 Earlier history
25
Hakonarsaga Hakonarsonar15 (Jakob Benediktsson 1955: 120; Louis-
Jensen 1977: 49).
Mattis Størssøn’s translation is not explicitly dated, but can never-
theless be placed with reasonable certainty in the mid-i540s. In 1540
Mattis Størssøn came to Bergen as magistrate (lagmann), from Agder,
where he had also been magistrate (Sørlie 1962: vii—viii). There can
be no doubt that the translation was made in Bergen, where the ma-
nuscripts were kept and where a humanist circle was steadily grow-
ing. Laurents Hanssøn’s translation can therefore, on the basis of his
own information, be dated to 1548—1551, and ever since the days of
Gustav Storm it has been generally accepted that Mattis Størssøn pre-
pared his translation after Laurents Hanssøn’s was finished.16 Storm
based this dating on the faulty premise that both Laurents and Mattis
had used Kringla for their translations, and thought that the manu-
script must have contained the prologue to Heimskringla when Lau-
rents used it, but not when Mattis used it (see further section 3.4 be-
low). The first leaves would have disappeared in the period between
the two translations and Laurents would therefore have used the book
first. The whole of Storm’s argument founders, however, if Laurents
Hanssøn, as Jakob Benediktsson has shown, did not use Kringla. There
are, moreover, good grounds for arguing that Storm’s chronology is
wrong and that Mattis Størssøn was the first to finish.
Among Mattis Størssøn’s sources was Bergsbok. Asgaut Steinnes has
shown that this manuscript had come into East Norwegian ownership
in the mid-sixteenth century. The number 9 is stamped on the binding,
followed by the name Peder Hanssøn. Steinnes has identified Peder
15 This may be the same manuscript of Hakonar saga Hakonarsonar that Peder
Claussøn later used for his saga translations. One fragment of it has been found
in the binding of a small manuscript book that can be traced to Peder Claussøn’s
home region. See Holm-Olsen 1954: 91—103.
16 Jonna Louis-Jensen, however, is sceptical and writes that it is not clear which of the
two translations is the earlier (Louis-Jensen 1977: 49).