Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Síða 450

430
NOTES
No autograph copy of Sk is extant, and the possibility that
Bjorn himself wrote more than one copy of the compilation can-
not be excluded; we return to this below. The following remarks
on the manuscripts are based essentially on earlier discussions of
Sk, though the results have been tested by sample collations from
each manuscript. An adequate investigation of the manuscript-
relationships in connection with an up-to-date edition of Sk is an
urgent requirement on several grounds, and such an edition is now
in preparation.—Sk is preserved in the following manuscripts:
AM 104, 108, 109 (written before 1648), 110, in fol., Ny
kgl. sml. 1147 fol., Stock. Papp. 8:0 nr. 3 (written 1673), IB
45 4to (written 1684). The most important of these manuscripts
is 104, which is a copy made for Torfæus of Bjorn Jånsson’s
autograph copy (see Jån Jåhannesson, op. cit. 13-14); of the
others 109, 110 and 1147 form a separate group, although 109
has a rather special position and from it 45 is directly or in-
directly derived1.—108 and 3 are closely related and may be
sister-manuscripts. 111 is severely abridged and interpolated, a
point we shall consider below. Finally, a now lost manuscript of
Sk was used in PårSarbåk (P), a compilation of Melabåk and Sk
(edited in Landn. 1921; cf. Jån Jåhannesson, op. cit. 19—36).
Sk’s text is published in the three oldest Landn.-editions (1688,
1774 and 1829; the last is based on 104). In the editions of
1774 and 1829 variants from the Sk manuscripts are given (not
however from 1147, 3, 45), but the most thorough and reliable
are those quoted in Jån SigurSsson’s edition in Islendinga sogur I,
1843 (but again none from 3 and 45). We may note that the
1688 edition, according to the words of the preface, was based
on five manuscripts; the text agrees best with the group 1147,
109, 110, and we often find readings peculiar to 109. It is evi-
dent that m (or this manuscript’s original), and S (or a copy of
it) were also used; the use of H is more dubious (this edition
is indicated in the following by Skålh.).
To return to AJ’s text. In the notes to the following passages
we give readings in AJ which agree with H against S: III
1 45 receives therefore no comment in the following discussion nor in the notes,
except when it differs from 109. Where 109 is mentioned without further remark,
45 coincides with its readings.