Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1943, Blaðsíða 31

XXIX
Page 161 and 913 162 and 1850
2715 M.S.S. MStis
2820 et] omitted et
2827 nostro] omitted nostro
2829 a tactu attactu
2911 prædio prædij
357 Magni] omitted Magni
35° domos qvi qvi domos
To this must be added the marginal notes in common to 161
and 913 (pp. 231'15, 25®), which are missing in 1850.
That 16 cannot be a copy of 913 (and the latter thus Worm’s
copy) appears from a number of readings in which 161 agrees with
1850 in contradistinction to 913:
2 626 nunqvam 162, 913: unqvam 161, 1850.
2916 imo 913: uno 16, 1850.
3034 singulisgi3: singularis 16, 1850.
335 includere 16, 1850: concludere 913.
34“ alia 16, 1850: illa 913.
37? vel 16, 1850: velut 913.
On the other hånd, the omission of 27® vel fuit in 161 shows
that 913 cannot be a copy of 16 before it was corrected.
Then the only possibility left is that they are both copies of
Worm’s specimen of HR. That 1850 agrees with Stephanius’ cor-
rections of various errors in 161 and further sometimes with 16 in
contradistinction to 913 besides its own variants can only mean 1)
that Stephanius’ corrections and 1850 must have a common source,
and 2) that this source cannot be Worm’s copy of HR, since this
must have contained the errors common to 161 and 913. Consequent-
ly the common source of Stephanius’ corrections and 1850 appears
to be the original itself. The only alternative is that 1850 might be
derived from 16 in its corrected form, but this does not seem very
likely (see above, p. XXVIII).
The numerous mistakes in 1850 render it probable, however, that
we have one or several intermediate links between this manuscript
and the original. A genealogy of the manuscripts will therefore
probably have the following appearance: