In recent years, the reception of Old Norse-Icelandic literature has seen an increasing amount of scholarly attention, which has manifested itself in a series of publications spanning from Northern Antiquity: The Post-Medieval Reception of Edda and Saga (Wawn 1994) in the early nineties, to the intensification of the interest in the past decade, for example, Studies in the Transmission and Reception of Old Norse Literature (Quinn and Cipolla 2016), The Legendary Legacy: Transmission and Reception of the Fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda (Driscoll et al. 2018), and most recently, The Vikings Reimagined: Reception, Recovery, Engagement (Birkett and Roderick 2020). The scope of reception studies stretches across various disciplines and topics, from early modern historical writing and National Romanticism, through transmission and adaptation histories of various works, to artistic influences of medieval literature on modern culture. The present article focuses on the early modern transmission and reception of a single literary work, which has hitherto received little attention in the scholarship.While studying Old Norse-Icelandic literature and manuscripts, scholars tend to focus either on synchronic or diachronic analysis, but in recent years, merging the two approaches has become increasingly popular. Among the recent studies that have in some way crossed boundaries of traditional analysis, we can mention, for instance, studies by Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir (2001), Massimiliano Bampi (2018), Silvia Hufnagel (2016; 2018), Tereza Lansing (2012; 2016), Philip Lavender (2014; 2019), and Hans Jacob Orning (2015; 2018). These and similar studies have clearly demonstrated that the application of interdisciplinary approaches to literature benefits our understanding of the circumstances of the creation, dissemination, and historical reception of literary works. It expands or even changes the ways in which we interpret literary works in their historical contexts. The present study approaches a single Old Norse-Icelandic saga from such an interdisciplinary perspective, crossing the borders between history, literature, and manuscript studies, and extensively drawing from transmission history, material philology, and reception studies.2The case study presented in this article is based on an analysis of the oldest witnesses of a single Old Norse legendary saga, Hrómundar saga Greipssonar, which was written in the second half of the seventeenth century.3 While this seventeenth-century saga has in its own right only been sparsely discussed in the literature, the materials related to Hrómundar saga have received a significant amount of scholarly attention, mainly due to its assumed medieval origins and the genealogical relevance of the protagonist of the saga to the history of Iceland. A saga by this name is mentioned in the widely cited description of the wedding feast in Reykhólar from 1119, which appears in Þorgils saga ok Hafliða, a part of the Sturlunga compilation (Brown 1952, 18). The medieval version of Hrómundar saga has not survived, and the only evidence for its existence in one form or another is this mention in Sturlunga. The genealogical relevance of the protagonist of the saga is also made explicit in the same description; moreover, Hrómundur is also mentioned by name in Landnámabók, where he is presented as a great-grandfather of the first settlers of Iceland, Ingólfur and Leifur (Finnur Jónsson 1900, 6). The only extant medieval manifestation of the story of Hrómundur is in metrical form, rímur, called Griplur or Hrómundar rímur Gripssonar, probably written in the fourteenth century, though the earliest manuscript is dated to the fifteenth century.4 The prose text, which can be found in all modern editions of Hrómundar saga, is a post-medieval adaptation of the story, written at the end of the seventeenth century, and based on the rímur (Brown 1946; Jesch 1984). The earliest manuscripts of the saga appear in Denmark in the second half of the seventeenth century, which was a period of intensified scholarly interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature in general.The early modern creation, transmission, and dissemination of the saga is here examined in the context of the growing historical and antiquarian interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature in early modern Denmark. The scribal networks of people responsible for the production and dissemination of Hrómundar saga include Árni Magnússon (1663–1730), the famous manuscript collector; Jón Eggertsson (c. 1642–1689), the infamous agent of the Swedish Society of Antiquities; and Þormóður Torfason (1636–1719), a prolific historiographer of the kingdom of Denmark-Norway.5 By exploring these scribal networks and the circulation of Hrómundar saga in its early days, the present study contributes to the ongoing discussion on the role that the corpus of legendary sagas played in early modern Scandinavian historiography (Hedeager 2004; J. G. Jørgensen 2008; Lavender 2014; O'Connor 2018; Kapitan 2019). Through analysis of the variation that appears in the saga in its broad sociopolitical context, this study explores the influence that the expectations of the audience had on the reshaping of the narrative. The title “When a King of Norway Became a King of Russia” refers to the textual variation that appears in the oldest texts of the saga, where different manuscripts place King Ólafur in different parts of Northern Europe. This variation is analyzed in light of the political circumstances in which the texts were produced and disseminated.This study consists of three main parts. The first part gives an overview of the historical background of Danish historiography and antiquarianism in the seventeenth century, focused on the rise of scholarly interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature, which produced Hrómundar saga as we know it today. The second part explores the seventeenth-century interest in the story of Hrómundur and presents the circumstances in which the saga was written. The third part presents a case study of the textual variation concerning King Ólafur and the geography of the saga. It explores the possible motivations for the appearance of this variation in select manuscripts, with emphasis on the individual interests of the scribes and commissioners involved in creating and disseminating these texts.The rise of historical and antiquarian interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature in Scandinavia is closely associated with the political struggles between the kingdom of Denmark and Norway and the kingdom of Sweden after the Kalmar Union had been officially dissolved in 1523 and a series of bloody wars over the dominium maris baltici (Baltic Sea dominion) took place (Kirby 1990; Lisk 1967). Until the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, when Danish scholars re-discovered the Icelandic sources, Old Norse-Icelandic literature was largely forgotten in Denmark and arguably also neglected in Iceland. As Margrét Eggertsdóttir recently summarized, the impulse for the rise of Icelandic interest in their heritage came from Denmark in the seventeenth century: At that time Icelanders became increasingly interested in their own history and cultural inheritance, not least their old manuscripts. Their interest may be traced to the influence of Danish scholars who, touched by the spirit of humanism, had come to understand the value of Icelandic vellums as sources, and the need to have these texts transcribed and published, complete with translations and commentaries. (Margrét Eggertsdóttir 2014, 68)In Denmark, this period is characterized by the intensified search for historical sources for the history of Denmark. As Ellen Jørgensen concluded, the seventeenth century wasIt is not the aim of this study to provide an exhaustive overview of the history of Danish historiography, or of the role Old Norse-Icelandic literature played in this period, nor of the competition between Sweden and Denmark for these sources, as detailed overviews have been presented by, among others, Ellen Jørgensen (1931), Karen Skovgaard-Petersen (1993; 2010), and most recently, Gottskálk Jensson (2019). It is, however, necessary to show the general sociopolitical background of the creation of the seventeenth-century Hrómundar saga.When Hrómundar saga appeared in Denmark in the second half of the seventeenth century, the Old Norse-Icelandic sources had been on the Danish historiographical and antiquarian radar for amost a century. The first known official letter concerning the collection of antiquarian materials in Iceland was issued on April 17, 1596, by Christian IV (1577–1648), king of Denmark and Norway between 1588 and 1648. In this letter, the king encourages Icelanders to make available to Arngrímur Jónsson (1568–1648) various materials that may be relevant for Niels Krag's (1550–1602) work as the royal historiographer (Laursen 1910, 616).6 After that point, many excellent Danish scholars looked to Iceland in their searches for sources, but not many could make good use of them, as knowledge of the Old Norse-Icelandic language among Danes was limited.This lack of general knowledge of the language led to the establishment of the position of royal translator, introduced by Frederik III (1609–1670), the king of Denmark and Norway from 1648 until 1670. The monarch, who instituted absolute monarchy in Denmark-Norway in 1660, became a great patron of research into the past of these two countries. This research was supposed to confirm that both Denmark and Norway not only had a splendid past but more importantly that they were ancient hereditary monarchies (Skovgaard-Petersen 2001; E. Jørgensen 1931, 144). Frederik III appointed an Icelander, Þórarinn Eiríksson (d. 1659), as the royal translator of Nordic antiquities, “kongelig translatør af nordiske antikviteter” (Kålund 1900, xxxvii), and sent him to Iceland in 1656 to collect sources. Þórarinn's service was not especially fruitful in translations or directly in new acquisitions, since he died only few years after his appointment, in 1659.7 Shortly after Þórarinn's appointment, however, Bishop Brynjólfur Sveinsson (1605–1675) sent three parchment manuscripts as a gift to Frederik III: a thirteenth-century manuscript of Grágas (today Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 1157 fol.), the fourteenth-century manuscript of kings’ sagas now known as Flateyjarbók (today Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 1005 fol.), and a late fourteenth- or early fifteenth-century manuscript of two legendary sagas, Ragnar saga loðbrókar and Völsunga saga (today Copenhagen, Royal Library, NKS 1824 b 4to) (Undervisningsministeriet 1951, 11; Kålund 1900, xxxviii, xlii–xliii). In a letter dated to July 10, 1656, Brynjólfur wrote to Villum Lange (1624–1682), tutor of the Crown Prince Christian, that he was sending these manuscripts to Denmark with the intention that they would be studied, edited, and translated.8After Þórarinn Eiríksson's death in 1659, another Icelander, Þormóður Torfason, better known under his Latinized name Thormodus Torfæus, was appointed by the king to translate Icelandic sagas into Danish.9 One of the manuscripts Frederik III had previously received from Brynjólfur Sveinsson, Flateyjarbók, was the basis for the biggest assignment that young Torfæus received: the Danish translation of all the texts preserved in this manuscript. Torfæus's translation, dated to 1661, is preserved in a magnificent manuscript consisting of four volumes: Copenhagen, the Royal Library GKS 1015 fol. (Petersen 2009, 26, 51). His translational work was not, however, limited to the kings’ sagas, as there are manuscripts preserving his Danish translations of legendary sagas as well, for instance, the impressive volume of over 470 leaves, Copenhagen, Royal Library GKS 1019 fol., which contains, among other texts, Hrólfs saga kraka, Bósa saga og Herrauðs, and Hálfs saga og Hálfsrekka.10Torfæus's work on the translation of Flateyjarbók must have pleased the monarch, as the following year, he was appointed as the royal antiquarian and traveled to Iceland to collect manuscripts for the king. His journey proved successful, since he came back with some of the most important medieval Icelandic manuscripts, including the thirteenth-century codex of kings’ sagas known today as Morkinskinna (Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 1009 fol.), the thirteenth-century codex known today as the Codex Regius of the Elder Edda (Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 2365 4to), as well as a fifteenth-century codex containing, among other texts, several legendary sagas (Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 2845 4to) (Undervisningsministeriet 1951, 21; Kålund 1900, xli). The contents of these volumes reflect the scholarly interest at the end of the seventeenth century in certain types of Old Norse literature, particularly kings’ sagas and legendary sagas.11During his work as a royal translator of Old Norse texts, Torfæus became aware of the differences between the royal genealogies as they are presented by Saxo and their Old Norse alternatives.12 The king commissioned him to write an account of these differences, which became Series dynastarum et regum Daniæ, first completed in manuscript form in 1664 and published in highly revised form in 1702. After the completion of this volume, Torfæus, for some unknown reason, lost his privileged position at the Danish court, and one can only speculate what influence the controversial contents of the Series dynastarum might have had on his position. After all, even almost 40 years later, when Árni Magnússon was discussing the publication of the volume with Torfæus, he considered its contents problematic and thought that it could be banned (Már Jónsson 2012, 128). In a letter from October 2, 1700, Árni wrote to Torfæus about the expected reception of the volume by the Danish audience: Ad þeim þætti otilheyriligt, ad vær Dansker skylldum giefa ödrum occasion til ad mistrua Saxoni. Kom mier þvi i hug, ad so kynni falla, . . . ad hans edition þá forbodin yrdi, iafnvel þo bókin censurerud sie. (Kålund 1916, 311)(They would consider it inappropriate that we Danes should give others pretext to disbelieve Saxo. It crossed my mind, that it could happen, that your publication would be banned, even though it is censored.)Whether the contents of Series dynastarum had anything to do with the winding course of Torfæus's scholarly career remains a matter of speculation, especially since already 3 years later, in 1667, he received another appointment as the royal antiquarian. His office was, however, not renewed after Frederik III's death and he had to wait to regain his office until much later. In 1682, he was appointed the historiographer of the kingdom of Norway “Historiographus for Kongeriget Norge,” with the main assignment to write a complete history of Norway in Latin (Bricka 1887, 17:256).It was under the auspices of Christian V (1646–1699) that Torfæus was able to continue his scholarly enterprise. Christian V took the Danish throne after his father and was the king of Denmark and Norway from 1670 until 1699. He continued his father's ideological program of emphasizing the hereditary character of Danish and Norwegian monarchies and was thus also highly interested in Old Norse-Icelandic material (Gottskálk Jensson 2019, 40). It is easy to imagine that the Scanian war (1675–1679) pushed intellectual activities to the background, as it was not until 1681 that another Icelander appeared in the Danish scholarly landscape in the role of royal antiquarian. This was Hannes Þorleifsson (d. 1682), who was appointed on June 7, 1681, and in the following year was sent to Iceland to collect manuscripts. His main assignments were summarized in six points listed in the letter of his appointment. They included preparing selected manuscripts for publication with commentaries; obtaining old and rare manuscripts (“gamle og rare Manuscripter”) for the royal library; and writing a complete history of Iceland. In the same letter, Icelanders were encouraged to make their manuscripts available to Hannes (Ólafur Halldórsson et al. 1853–1874, 1:381–3).The antiquarian activities on the other side of the Øresund were no less intensive.13 In fact, the earliest editions of the legendary sagas originated in Sweden, not in Denmark. Olof Verelius (1618–1682), with the help of an Icelander, Jón Jónsson from Rúgstaðir (1636–1679), published an edition and a Swedish translation of Gautreks saga in 1664, followed by a series of other sagas. Only a few years later, in 1667, the Swedish Society of Antiquities (Antikvitetskollegium) was established, and, as will be discussed later, the appearance of Hrómundar saga can be associated with the activities of this institution. One of the explicit objectives of the Antikvitetskollegium was to collect historical documents that could deliver information regarding Swedish history, including “gamble Jsslandska och norske manuscripter” (Jucknies 2009, 31) [old Icelandic and Norwegian manuscripts].The establishment of the Antikvitetskollegium and the intensification of Swedish interest in Old Norse sources preserved in Iceland probably played a not insignificant role in assuring the reappointment of Torfæus into the royal service of the Danish-Norwegian king. Torfæus wrote an application to the king in which he emphasized the scale of collecting and editorial activities in Sweden: Hos de Svenske var derimod oprettet et Antiqvitets Collegium, forsynet med frit Bogtrykkerie, og en anseelig Indkomst om Aaret. De havde faaet en Islænder, som de rigelig underholdte. De opsøgde og tilhandlede dem alt hvad de kunde overkomme af vore gamle Sager; og havde allerede ved disses hielp faaet udgivne adskillige Skrifter. (John Erichsen 1786–1788, 266–7)(The Swedes have, on the contrary, established a Society of Antiquities, provided with a free printing, and a considerable yearly income. They have hired an Icelander, whom they have amply supported. They sought after and acquired for them all they could find of our old sagas, and have already, with their aid, gotten several writings published.)The competition for Old Norse-Icelandic sources was in full swing when two men, acting on behalf of the competing monarchies, spent time in Iceland collecting manuscripts in the very same year, 1682: the newly appointed royal antiquarian Hannes Þorleifsson on behalf of Denmark and Jón Eggertsson on behalf the Swedish Antikvitetskollegium (Bjarni Einarsson 1955, xlii; Jón Helgason 1979, 176; Jucknies 2009, 93–6). While Jón Eggertsson managed to obtain a considerable collection of manuscripts, which he sent to Stockholm, Hannes Þorleifsson's endeavors did not bring new acquisitions to the royal collection, as he, together with the manuscripts he collected, never made it back to Copenhagen (Már Jónsson 2012, 42–3; Aðalgeir Kristjánsson 1975, 378). After Hannes Þorleifsson's death, Christian V appointed Thomas Bartholin (1659–1690) as the royal antiquarian, and under his direct influence, the king issued a Royal Decree in 1685, which banned the sale of Icelandic manuscripts abroad (Kålund 1900, xxix; Aðalgeir Kristjánsson 1975, 377–8). The ban can be seen as a response to the manuscript collecting activities in Iceland of Jón Eggertsson on behalf of the Swedes, which, as Kålund put it, “matte anses for i höj grad upatriotisk” (1900, xxix) [may be considered to a high degree unpatriotic].Thomas Bartholin's letter of appointment issued on February 23, 1683, makes it explicit that Icelandic materials would play a significant role in his scholarly enterprise, as he had toThat same year, Bartholin met an Icelander, Árni Magnússon, recently enrolled at the University of Copenhagen, whom he hired as his assistant to translate Old Norse texts. Bartholin was also in contact with Jón Eggertsson, who at that time was imprisoned in Copenhagen, and obtained from him some manuscripts. After 1685, Bertholin also kept contact with Torfæus, with whom he was discussing various matters of his research (Aðalgeir Kristjánsson 1975, 380; Már Jónsson 2012, 52). All these men played an important role in the early dissemination of Hrómundar saga, which will be discussed in the following section.As demonstrated in the previous section, scholarly interest in Old Norse-Icelandic literature both in Denmark and Sweden flourished throughout the seventeenth century. While the most scholarly attention was directed toward the Eddas and the kings’ sagas, the legendary sagas, such as Hrómundar saga, also became increasingly sought after. From the extant scholarly correspondence, we know that, at least in Denmark at the end of the seventeenth century, there was scholarly interest in the story of Hrómundur. In 1684, Torfæus, who at that time was the royal historiographer tasked with writing a history of Norway, wrote a letter to his acquaintance in Iceland, the Reverend Torfi Jónsson (1617–1689), pastor of Gaulverjabær and a nephew of Bishop Brynjólfur Sveinsson. In this letter, Torfæus stated that he needed access to several sagas, which could be useful in his study of royal genealogies. One of the sagas he mentioned is a saga of Hrómundur Greipsson, which he had never seen: “Þvi þarft eg öbrigdannlega sógur af Harallde Hilldetón, Amlooda, . . . og af Hromunde Greipssyne sem eg hefe helldur alldrei sied” (AM 285 b IV fol., f. 13v) [Therefore I need reliable sagas of Haraldur hilditönn, Amlóði, . . . and of Hrómundur Greipsson, which I have also never seen].Even though Torfæus lists Hrómundar saga in his Series dynastarum, as published in 1702 (Torfæus 1702, 6),14 and mentions Hrómundur in his Historia rerum Norvegicarum (1711), it is not certain at which point he actually received a manuscript copy of the saga. His knowledge of the story of Hrómundur, demonstrated in Historia rerum Norvegicarum, where he lists Hrómundur as a grandson of Hrókur the black in Book 4, chapters 2 and 14 (Torfæus 2008–2014, 1:350, 387, 511), might have come exclusively from secondary sources. Torfæus was, after all, very well-versed in Icelandic sources, as attested in the same letter: Enn i Gaungu Hrölfs Historiu sem ätte ad wera sonur Sturlaugs (allt ef þad er sä same Sturlaugur) stendur ad Olafur sonur Gaungu Rolfs, sem atte ad wera Kongur i Danmórk, hefde hafft hiä sier Hromund Greipßon, Enn nær Hromundur Greipsson war, weit eg wel, þvi hann var langafe Jngolfs, sem Ißland first bidge, og dottur sonur Hroks swarta, sem war Eirn af Hälfs Reckum. (AM 285 b IV fol., f. 12v)(But in the saga of Göngu-Hrólfur, who was supposed to be a son of Sturlaugur, if this is the same Sturlaugur, it is written that Ólafur, son of Göngu-Hrólfur, who was supposed to be a king in Denmark, had with him Hrómundur Greipsson. And I know very well when Hrómundur Greipsson was [alive], because he was a great-grandfather of Ingólfur, who was first to settle Iceland, and a maternal grandson of Hrókur the Black, who was one of Hálfur's champions.)None of these pieces of information about Hrómundur had to come directly from Hrómundar saga. The information about Ólafur being king of Denmark and his relationship to Göngu-Hrólfur could be based on Göngu-Hrólfs saga (Rafn 1829–1830, 3:363),15 while the information about Hrómundur being a great-grandfather of Ingólfur could have come from Landnámabók (Finnur Jónsson 1900, 6), or secondarily from Flóamanna saga (Finnur Jónsson 1932). Finally, Hrómundur's relationship to Hrókur the Black is also mentioned in Hálfs saga ok Hálfsrekka (Rafn 1829–1830, 2:59). Because of this intertextual context in which Hrómundur Greipsson appears, Torfæus could have equally well included Hrómundur in his genealogies without having access to any actual copy of Hrómundar saga.At some point, however, Torfæus must have received a manuscript containing the prose version of the story, as there are two manuscripts preserving Hrómundar saga with marginalia written in his hand. Both manuscripts are today part of the Arnamagnæan collection and are held in Reykjavík, AM 193 e fol. and AM 587 b 4to, and in both manuscripts, Torfæus comments on the genealogies of the saga characters. One emphasizes the similarities between various sagas, while the other one highlights the differences.In the first chapter of the saga Hrómundur's parents, Greipur and Gunnlöð, are introduced: “Þar bio eirn rikr boande sa het Greipr, hann atti þa kono er Gunnlöð het dóttir Hroks hins Svarta” (AM 193 e fol., f. 1r) [There was one rich landowner called Greipur, he had a wife called Gunnlöð, daughter of Hrókur the Black]. Next to this passage, AM 193 e fol. has a marginal note that concerns Hrómundur's relation to Hrókur the Black. Torfæus noted here that the account of Hrómundar saga should be compared with the account of Hálfs saga og Hálfsrekka: “confers Saga af | alfi og alfsreckum | hrokr var ein af koppum alfs er | atte brynhilde haka | kongs dottur” [compare Hálfs saga ok Hálfsrekka, Hrókur was one of the champions of Hálfur that had as a wife Brynhild daughter of King Haki]. In Hálfs saga og Hálfsrekka, the relation between Hrómundur and Hrókur is made explicit in chapter 16 (cf. Rafn 1829–1830, 2:59).In AM 587 b 4to, Torfæus's comment concerns the relationship between King Ólafur and Gnoð-Ásmundur, which is compared to the account of Göngu-Hrólfs saga. At the beginning of the saga, Ólafur is said to be a son of Gnoð-Ásmundur: “er Olafr het, hann var son Gnoðar Asmundar” (AM 587 b 4to, f. 1r), and in chapter 3, he is said to have two sisters, Dagný and Svahvít: “Konongr atti tvær systr. Ønnr þeirra hiet Dagny. Enn hin Svanhvyt” (AM 587b 4to, f. 5v). In the margin of folio 5v, where the sisters are introduced, Torfæus wrote: “Svanhuita Dag|ny Systur Olafs | Kongs, Saga aff | Gaungu Hrolfi | seiga bædi Olaff | kong er þær born | hans enn ecke Gno|[d]ar Asmundar” [Svanhvít and Dagný, sisters of King Ólafur; the saga of Göngu-Hrólfur says that both King Ólafur and they were his, Göngu-Hrólf's, children, and not Gnoð-Ásmundur's]. Torfæus notes here the difference in genealogies as presented in Hrómundar saga and Göngu-Hrólfs saga, since, according to Göngu-Hrólfs saga, chapter 38, Ólafur was supposed to be a son of Göngu-Hrólfur (Rafn 1829–1830, 3:362).From these marginal notes, it is clear—and not really surprising—that Torfæus, as the royal historiographer, was mainly interested in the genealogies of Danish and Norwegian dynasties. What is worth observing, however, is that Hrómundar saga serves as a source of historical information almost simultaneously with the appearance of the very first manuscripts of the saga. This happens around the same time as Torfæus is given the assignment of writing the history of Norway and when he writes to Torfi Jónsson that he has never seen this saga.While Hrómundar saga is preserved in over thirty manuscripts, none of them can be dated further back in time than the second half of the seventeenth century. The oldest manuscripts in relative chronological order are the following eight volumes (summarized in Table 1): (1) Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, AM 601 b 4to, written by Jón Eggertsson, and based on his life span datable to 1660–1689 (Kapitan 2018, 36); (2) Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, AM 587 b 4to, according to Már Jónsson (2009, 285) written between 1686 and 1688 by Ásgeir Jónsson (c. 1657–1707) and Eyjólfur Björnsson (1666–1746). Today it is a single-text manuscript preserving exclusively Hrómundar saga, but it used to be a part of a bigger codex, which I refer to as TT XIII 4to, and which belonged to Torfæus (Kålund 1909, 78); (3) Copenhagen, Royal Library, Thott 1768 4to, according to Már Jónsson (2009, 285) written by Ásgeir Jónsson between 1686 and 1697; (4) Stockholm, Royal Library, Papp. Fol. nr. 67 written by Jón Eggertsson while imprisoned in Copenhagen between 1684 and 1687 (Jucknies 2009, 79); (5) Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, AM 193 e fol., according to Már Jónsson (2009, 285) written by Ásgeir Jónsson between 1690 and 1697. This single-quire manuscript used to be a part of a bigger volume, which I refer to as TT XIII fol., and which belonged to Torfæus and contained a number of mostly legendary sagas, but it was dismembered by Árni Magnússon and today contains exclusively Hrómundar saga (Kålund 1909, 70–1); (6–8) three manuscripts in which Hrómundar saga was written by Jón Þórðarson16 in 1695: Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar AM 345 4to, London, British Library Add 4859, and Reykjavík, Landsbókasafn LBS 222 fol.Textual analysis reveals that all extant texts of Hrómundar saga, as preserved in these manuscripts, are descended from a single manuscript, AM 601 b 4to, which is written in Jón Eggertsson's hand. This is the same infamous Jón Eggertsson, mentioned in the previous section, who was collecting manuscripts in Iceland in 1682 for the Swedish Society of Antiquities. Moreover, it has been previously suggested that Jón Eggertsson was the author of the seventeenth-century Hrómundar saga (Bjarni Einarsson 1984; Jucknies 2009). Given the important role of Jón Eggertsson in the creation of the saga, it seems very likely that the reappearance of the long-lost saga in Denmark had something to do with the antiquarian and historical interest in Old Norse-Icelandic sources that was so characteristic of this period. As the following section will demonstrate, the activity of Jón Eggertsson can be seen as a response to this contemporary interest.Even though, theoretically, the possibility cannot be excluded that Jón gained access to some manuscript preserving Hrómundar saga during his stay in Iceland in 1682 and decided to copy it, it seems highly unlikely given the circumstances. After his journey to Iceland, Jón Eggertsson prepared a report of his expenses for the Swedish Society of Antiquities. This report includes a list of manuscripts he brought with him, and on this list, there is a manuscript that contained