Gripla - 01.01.1995, Blaðsíða 145

STEFANUS SAGA IN REYKJAHÓLABÓK
143
verging „huflr skulu uier yduflr leita“ in AM 661 (13vl9-20) turns out
to transmit a Latin „Et ubi uos queremus?" (Mombritius, 494:26-27).
A survey of the variants provides evidence of a progressive reduc-
tion of text vis-á-vis the original translation, which is evident now in
the one, now in the other manuscript. In Sth. 3 we read: „skirn af
sancte Petre og sancte Johannes efteraa" (228:11-12), while Sth. 15 con-
tains an additional element: „skírn af læresvéinom criz pettare oc
iohaNe“ (94v4). The reading in Sth. 2 - „skirn af lærisveinvm kristz“
(46rb31; Hms 299:4) - and AM 661 (13vl3), with which AM 655 XIV
(2r21) concurs, suggests that this passage may have undergone so-
called complementary attrition. Vis-á-vis what is presumably the full
text in Sth. 15, the manuscripts Sth. 2 and AM 655 XIV have lost the
names of the apostles, while Sth. 3 transmits them but without the
identification.
Comparison of corresponding passages in all the manuscripts shows
attrition of text vis-á-vis the original translation, even in Sth. 3, which
otherwise often transmits a fuller text, although it cannot always be
determined whether this reflects the original translation or later scribal
intervention. The reading „og hafda eg hann heim j mitt hvs nockvra
stvnd“ in Sth. 3 (228:17) is supported, albeit in shorter form, by AM
655 XIV „oc uar hann með mer“ (2r22), while Sth. 2, AM 661, and Sth.
15 do not transmit the text. Conversely, the passage „oc þurra f$zlo at
hafa“ in Sth. 15 (94vl7) is transmitted by Sth. 2 (46va7; Hms 299:20),
AM 661 (14r5), and AM 655 XIV (2r29), but is lacking in Sth. 3.
The miracle sequence contains two striking examples of a loss of text
in Sth. 3 - in one instance also in Sth. 2 - which is transmitted, how-
ever, both by the oldest manuscript, Sth. 15, and by AM 661, a manu-
script contemporaneous with Sth. 3. In the account relating how the
pagan Marcialis is both cured and converted through the intercession
of St. Stephen, Sth. 2 and Sth. 3 share a rather cryptic text. While Sth. 2
writes: „ok mællú þetta eitt ord ok hafdi hfl«n þav ord j mvnm sem ste-
phflnvs þa tr hann \ar gn'othi bardr“ (48val5-17; Hms 307:4-6), Sth. 3
contains the same with only minor variation: „enn efteraa hafde hann
þav ord j mvnne er Stefanvs mællte þaa er hann var med griothe bardr“
(243:14-16). The reading in AM 661 attests that the corruption in both
Sth. 2 and 3 is the result of text having been lost because a scribe’s eye
presumably skipped from one occurrence of ord to the next: