Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1970, Blaðsíða 358

332
3. (after some lost leaves, perhaps 13, if no other material is
lost here) The Floamanna saga fragments (AM445b,ff.4—5rb5)44.
Probably 2 leaves lost between them.
44 GuSbrandur Vigfiisson and Th. Mobius (Fornsogur, Leipzig, 1860, Vorrede,
p. xxiv) say that the two leaves which immediately preceded f.4 of AM 445b, 4to
were still preserved in the 17th century, and were copied along with f.4 into
AM 515, 4to, which otherwise follows the Vatnshyrna version of Flåamanna saga.
(There is some confusion over the Ms. number on this page of their introduction
-—it appears as AM 515, fol. (1.2) and as AM 514, 4to (1.12)—but it is clear that
AM 515, 4to is meant in both cases). They print the relevant part of AM 515, 4to
(p. 28,1. 26-p. 41,1.18) on pp. 168-177 of their edition, immediately before their
(non-diplomatic) text of f.4 of AM 445b, 4to (pp. 177-183, corresponding to p. 41,
1.18-p. 49,1.25 in AM 515, 4to).
Finnur Jonsson, on p. iv of the introduction to his edition of Floamanna saga
(S.T.U.A.G.N.L., Vol. LVI, Copenhagen, 1932), refers to the printed text of this
part of AM 515, 4to in Fornsogur, but asserts that there was only one leaf preserved
when AM 515, 4to was written which has since been lost, that it was conjugate
with f.4 of AM 445b, 4to, and that the writing on it was closer than on f.4, so
that it contained more text. But f.4 is itself elosely written, and it is unlikely that
the preceding leaf could have contained half as much again, as Finnur Jonsson’s
assertion would imply. If this part of AM 515, 4to does derive from a fragment of
Pseudo- Vatnshyrna now lost, it is probably better to explain the faet that it does
not correspond to an exaet number of leaves by suggesting that the scribe may
already have copied part of the substance corresponding to the first leaf before he
realised that it was contained in the membrane fragment. But a brief eomparison
of f.4 of AM 445b with the corresponding substance in AM 515, 4to suggests to
me that, although the two resemble each other more elosely than either ap-
proaches the copies of Vatnshyrna in AM 516 and 517, 4to, they may be less
elosely related than Gudbrandur, Mobius and Finnur Jonsson believed.
It is established by a slip inserted by Arni Magniisson at the beginning of the
Ms. that AM 515, 4to had belonged to Sira &6r5ur (Jonsson) i Hitardalur (1609-
1670), and GuObrandur and Mobius suggest (loc. cit.) that it may be in his hånd.
This suggestion becomes assertion in the Arnamagnæan Catalogue (Vol. I, p. 671)
and in Finnur Jonsson’s edition (loc. cit.). But in Opuscula III, p. 161, Agnete
Loth attributes this Ms., along with a number of others, to Einar Eyjolfsson
(cl641-1695). The hånd here is the same as that in a large part of AM 486, 4to;
on two of the numerous slips inserted into that Ms., Åmi Magniisson says of this
hånd that the scribe was trying to imitate the hånd of Sira I>or5ur, and he has
later added to these slips: “o: Einars Eyolfssonar certum” and “Nota, er hånd
Einars Eyolfssonar, jm hann var i Hitardal certum". A third slip, also in Ami’s
hånd, says that Floamanna saga also appeared originally in AM 486, 4to, after
Hænsa-Pdris saga and Hardar saga, both in the same hånd as AM 515, 4to, so it
seems probable that AM 515, 4to originally belonged to the same volume as AM 486,
4to. I am indebted to Miss Agnete Loth for drawing my attention to this evidence.