Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series B - 01.06.1962, Page 111
CIX
that printed here. Finnur Jónsson, in the introduction to
his edition of Hb2), argued that the section of HÞ found
in that MS was the continuation of the incomplete HÞ
in Flat. He substantiated this argument by reference to
the hafrbelgr which Haraldr left behind with Ellisif. This
is mentioned at the opening of HÞ in Hr (l6) and Flat
(l18) and again in Hr (3714). The section of HÞ that is
preserved in Ásgeir Jónsson’s transcript of Hb opens at
this very point in the story (3729). Miss den Hoed, in
her edition of MHR3), denied that this link between the
various MSS was sufficient to prove the unity of the two
sections of HÞ and argued that HÞ as it was printed by
Jón Þorkelsson4) and as the outline of the narrative
survives in MHR must be closer to the originaf þáttr.
Jón Þorkelsson printed HÞ from JS 434 4to, a MS
containing a version of HÞ derived partly from Flat and
partly from the Æfentyr (cf. above pp. xliii, Ixxxv). Liestol5)
gave Miss den Hoed some measure of support by suggest-
ing the possibility of the insertion of the hafrbelgr in the
first part of HÞ by someone who found the two parts of
HÞ separate and had the idea of combining them to
make one work.
The hafrbelgr and the verses that refer to it are not
mentioned in any other source, however, and this suggests
that they were adapted into the þáttr by the author, who
was perhaps influenced by the otrbelgr filled with gold
mentioned in Snorra EddaS) or the hafrbelgr which
Qrvar-Oddr used as a quiver7). It is of great significance
that the texts as preserved in Hr and Hb overlap at one
point (pp. 37-38) and since the hafrbelgr and the errand
2) Hauksbók, 1892-96, lxxxix.
3) Hemingsrímur, 1928, lxxvi-lxxviii.
4) Sex Sögu-þættir, 1855, 44-71.
5) Maal og Minne, 1933, 102.
6) Ecl. Finnur Jónsson, 1931, 127.
7) Qrvar-Odds saga, ed. R. C. Boer, 1892, 6.