Gripla - 20.12.2004, Page 27

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON STJÓRN 25
case, Stjórn II never found its way into 227, and it remains known to us only
in 226 and in copies derived from that codex.
AM 225 fol, written in the first half of the fifteenth century, is a direct
copy of 226 but made before Stjórn II was inserted in it. Its value lies in the
fact that it provides the text of two leaves of Stjórn III that are now lacking in
226.
Stjórn I is preserved in 226 and 227 and fragmentarily elsewhere. The 226
copy is complete and supplied the basic text in Unger’s edition. On the la-
cunas in 227 see pp. 8–10 above. As noted earlier, the 227 scribes were also
responsible for the Stjórn copies represented in the fragments in AM 229 fol I
and NRA 60A. Unger used these fragments, though not at all exhaustively, to
provide variants and emendations in his edition. The hand of 226 is known in
a fair number of other manuscripts which are thought to have been written at
or in some association with, the Augustinian monastery at Helgafell in the
west of Iceland (Ólafur Halldórsson 1966; Stefán Karlsson 1967:19–21). Stef-
án Karlsson finds it plausible to assign 226 to c. 1360–70 (1967:21), a little
later, that is, than the probable date of 227. 226 may well have been at home
in Helgafell; its first known owner was the sheriff and magnate, Eggert
Björnsson (1612–81), of Skar› on nearby Skar›sströnd (Ólafur Halldórsson
1966:42–43; Stefán Karlsson 1967:46).
The texts of Stjórn I in 226 and 227 are closely related, but it is unlikely
that they were copied from the same exemplar. In the first place, it can be said
for certain that the texts of Stjórn III in the two manuscripts are not from the
same immediate source; and in the second place, it can be seen from Unger’s
variants (though they represent only a selection from the total that could be
adduced) that the text of 227 is often superior to that of 226 (Seip 1954:
191–193). 226 also omits sentences and even whole chapters which are found
in 227 and which we can safely believe were in the original translation (see
Unger 1862:7,18,56,67). There are other shorter passages which appear in
different positions in the two manuscripts (e.g. Unger 1862:58; cf. 17,76; cf.
78). There is frequent discrepancy in the chapter-titles as well. In contrast to
the natural wording of the prologue title in 226 (Unger 1862:1), for example,
227 shows obvious error in saying that the work is called „Heilagra manna
blómstr“, the result of misunderstanding the reference halfway through the
prologue to the separate work of that name which had also been translated at
the behest of King Hákon.
Fols. 1–6 of the fragments in AM 229 fol I are from Stjórn I, fols. 7–16