Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Side 110

90
INTRODUCTION
“froSum”, Knyti. 21813); I 4311 AJ’s manuscript had Potvijk
(corrected in our text to Fotvijk), which corresponds to B’s Pot-
vik (or Pott-), see Knyti. 2208-17, 22219; I 43323-24 AJ’s reading
here is a decided improvement on the text found in both A and
B, see note ad loc. In all these passages the A-version is repre-
sented only by copies from Cod. Academicus, and we can have no
idea of what may have stood in A2. On the other hånd, it is pos-
sible to adduce numerous examples where A2 has readings in
common with the B-version and differing from Cod. Academi-
cus, see Sggur Danak. pp. xli—xliii.—From this alone, of
course, it is impossible to conclude that A2 was AJ’s source, and
there is in faet one reading which direetly contradicts such a
theory. PorSr dorri (Knyti. inff.) is always called Dorus by
AJ (I 4o88ff.), as in Cod. Academicus. In the B-version, on the
other hånd, he is called PorSr skorri (skori), and on the one
occasion he is named in the preserved fragments of A2 the same
form is found (Knyti. 14613; cf. ibid. p. xli). As the editor has
observed, skorri is probably the original form. Naturally, one
cannot he certain that A2 had this form in every instance, but
most probably it did so, and in that case A2 could not have been
AJ’s source. It may also he remarked that, according to Årni
Magnusson’s notes, the fragments of A2 came originally from
Skalholt (see Kålund’s Katalog I 14). This result agrees with
the conclusion reached in the next chapter, viz. that AJ’s manu-
script of Skjpldunga saga was not the codex of which we now
possess fragments.—Here we must be content with the conclu-
sion that AJ’s manuscript of Knyti. 1) was an exemplar of the
A-version, 2) was not Cod. Academicus or a copy descended
from it, and 3) was scarcely A2 itself, but rather a manuscript
closely related to it, now lost.
74. Hernings pattr Åslakssonar. AJ reproduces this story in a
form which shows that he must have known it in its entirety,
whilst we do not possess it complete in any single old manuscript.
The beginning is found in Flat. (III 400—410), considerably
more of the story is in Hrokkinskinna (GI. kgl. sml. 1010 fol.),
but it was never concluded there, and the end is found only in
Hauksbåk (pp. 331—49). The first part is also found in three
paper manuscripts from the seventeenth century, AM 65 fol.,