Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.2000, Blaðsíða 95

93
Flugur, smágreinar og umrœðuefni
day and time. That this is indeed the case is demonstrated by a num-
ber of examples from Sverris saga. It is, therefore, not so much the
text as the individual manuscript, that is to be used for this type of
research.
As consultation of the manuscripts themselves is too time consum-
ing, editions are used. Now editions come in many flavours, from
extremely strict diplomatic editions which painstakingly copy the
manuscript, to normalized reading editions, and all the possibilities in
between. Editors as well as scribes are subject to making unintentional
ehanges from an unusual to a more usual form. And especially in read-
big editions this type of change might even be made intentionally. In
my own work on Möðruvallabók I have noted in various íslenzk forn-
rit editions of the sagas of that manuscript small, but for this type of
research significant deviations from the manuscript text without men-
tion in the notes. In my opinion the normalized reading editions of Is-
lenzk fornrit can therefore only be used to find relevant places, which
have then to be checked in a diplomatic edition. It is quite possible
that Jón Friðjónsson did so, but if so, why not refer to the diplomatic
edition instead of the reading edition in the list of source texts?
Another misguided choice of source text is Wisén s edition of the
Icelandic Homily Book which was published in 1872. Ludvig Larsson
Published in 1887 his Studier över den Stockholmska Homilieboken
I—II, which contained nearly 2000 corrections to Wisén s edition. Wi-
sén defended his edition militantly, not shying from personal attacks
°n Larsson. Larsson stuck to his opinion and gave in his Ordfön ádet
i de álsta islánska handskrifterna (1891) his own readings but with
reference to page and line in Wisén’s edition. More than 80 years lat-
er the dispute was decided in favour of Larsson by Gustaf Lindblad in
his article Den ratta lasningen av Islandska homilieboken. Lindblad
reckoned that in the vast majority of the disputed places Larsson was
right without a shade of doubt, but also found that in most of the cases
where Larsson seemed to err, the manuscript had been tampered with.
Thus there is every reason to avoid Wisén’s edition and to use its
successor published by Stofnun Áma Magnússonar. In this particular
Case, however, one could and should use Larsson’s Ordförradet,