Gripla - 2021, Blaðsíða 22

GRIPLA20
Cantuariensibus nonnulla med nockrum heilỏgum æfintirum” in AM 764
4to caught his eye, seeing as he was about to journey to England.41 In his
catalogue, Árni describes the manuscript as being unbound, “mutilus, et (ut
apparet) confusus” (fragmentary, and (apparently) in disorder).42 Snatching
a small bifolium from an unbound and disordered manuscript would not
take much effort and – as it turns out – its loss would remain unnoticed
for over two centuries.
5. Anecdotes of Several Archbishops of Canterbury
As mentioned above, Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir has shown that the first half
of AM 764 4to is a compilation with a precise purpose: to relate univer-
sal history. The same method has been employed in the compiling of the
Anecdotes segment of Reynistaðarbók that is now split between Stowe MS
980, ff. 40–41, and AM 764 4to, ff. 36r and 37v, albeit on a smaller scale:43
the compiler of Anecdotes has collected, copied, abridged, and reordered
texts already available in vernacular translations to form a distinct compila-
tion, one concerned with Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman archbishops,
41 Although Thomas Astle would be the recipient of the bifolium, it is interesting to note that
in 1789, Thorkelin made an edition of a treatise by Edward Rowe Mores (1731–1778), based
on a manuscript in Astle’s possession, where Mores claimed that Ælfric the grammarian
and abbot of Eynsham was identical with Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury. Thorkelin
dedicated the edition to John Moore, the then-current archbishop of Canterbury, who
also served as the chair of the board of trustees of the British Museum. Elizabeth Harriet
Harvey Wood has theorised that the only reason for Thorkelin publishing this “dull, long-
winded and clearly unreliable commentary” without any criticism was to “have something
which he could dedicate appropriately to the present Archbishop of Canterbury, [...] an
acquaintance from whom he possibly hoped for further and substantial benefits” (E. H.
Harvey Wood, “Letters to an Antiquary,” 66–67). We can further hypothesise that the
Icelandic bifolium may have originally been intended for the archbishop, but for one
reason or another, Thorkelin gave it to Astle instead – who in turn lent him the Mores
manuscript. It is unclear if Thorkelin’s obsequiousness played any part in it, but in any case,
the archbishop offered him a position in the British Museum the following year – a post
which “would give him direct access to the best resources in Great Britain, easy access to
the Tower of London, and an open door to cathedral and university archives throughout
Great Britain and Ireland” (Kevin S. Kiernan, The Thorkelin Transcripts of Beowulf, 32–33).
42 Arne Magnussons … håndskriftfortegnelser, 41. Rather than using Árni Magnússon’s own
handwritten catalogue, Thorkelin would probably have used a better organised transcript,
for example AM 456 fol., written by Jón Ólafsson in 1730, where AM 764 4to is listed on
f. 29r.
43 This only applies to the parts written by hand E.