Cf. also at the beginning of Gylfaginning (K and U omit the first
SnE 8/4 af WTNThJ, at R.
SnE 8/6 nokkurs WTNThJ, ¦*¦ R.
There are also a few places in the prologue where the paper manu-
scripts share readings against both R and WTU, which perhaps indi-
cates that they are all derived from the same copy of R, or perhaps
from a sister manuscript of R rather than from R itself:
SnE 5/3 er (2) RWTJ, var KTh (-*- UN).
SnE 5/4 af RTW, ad KThJ (-*- UN).
SnE 5/12 at RTWJ, ¦*¦ KTh (-*¦ N, rephrased U).
SnE 5/12 Oc RWJ, - TUKTh (-*- N).
SnE 5/12 gefa RTWJ, gáfu KTh (+ UN).
SnE 5/17 Saxalandi RTW, Saxlandi UKThJ (-*- N).
SnE 5/21 Vestfal RW, Vestual T, Vestr fál U, Vestur fall K,
Vestphalia, Vestur folld Th, Vestphalen (eðr Vest-
folld) J (- N).
SnE 6/14 vorv RTWUJ, eru KTh (+- N).
SnE 6/15 slikt vald hafa RTW, hafa slikt valld KThJ (-^- UN).
Cf. also at the beginning of Gylfaginning:
SnE 8/9 gaf RWT, + þvi J, + hun þui Th, + hiin N (-^- K
SnE 8/18 er RWTU, ad KNThJ.
SnE 9/13 skaltv RWT, og skalltu KNJ, og máttu Th (+ U).
It therefore cannot be assumed that in the part of the text where R is
not extant readings shared by the paper manuscripts are necessarily the
readings of R; but the departures from R in the prologue where it is
extant are few and slight, and it is likely that the common original of
the paper manuscripts was very similar to R.
There follows a tentative reconstruction of the text of the missing
leaf of R, based on the text of K, supplemented where there are gaps
from N and Th. The readings of K are retained where they correspond
to T, W, or U, and if they differ from these, where they are confirmed
by one or more of the other paper manuscripts; but readings found only
in K are corrected from one of the other manuscripts. Full variants