Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1970, Blaðsíða 360

334
10. (after 2 lost leaves) The remaining fragments of Viga-Glums
saga (AM 564a, ff.5-7ra);
1 leaf lost between ff. 5 and 6,
5 leaves lost between ff.6 and 7.
11. The Hardar saga fragment (AM 564a, f.7). If the beavy
abridgement of this version were maintained throughout the
saga, it would fill a further 5 leaves after f.7, which, working
tentatively from the Gisla saga fragment, would seem to
leave half of an eight-leaf quire unused. But if this were
the last saga in the Ms., a four-leaf quire may have been used,
so this does not necessarily imply that there was more
material in the codex after Hardar saga.
10.2. The exact relationship between Vatnshyrna and Pseudo-
Vatnshyrna is not clear, but some conclusions may be drawn
from the results already deduced.
It seems that the Pseudo-Vatnshyrna versions of Bdrdar saga
Snæfellsdss, Pordar saga Hredu and the dream-pættir are relatively
closely related to those which appeared in Vatnshyrna, (for the last,
this can be seen from the copies of Vatnshyrna in AM 555h, 4to and
AM 564c, 4to (cf .3.2 above); for the other two it seems clear from Arn-
grimur Jonsson’s use of them as they appeared in Vatnshyrna^1. On
the other hånd, the copies of Vatnsdæla saga and Eyrbyggja saga of
which fragments survive in AM 445b, 4to, cannot have been very
closely related to Vatnshyrna, judging from the copies of those
sagas made from Vatnshyrna by Åmi Magnusson and Åsgeir
Jonsson (AM 559, 4to and AM 448, 4to (E))48; and the fragment
47 Arngrimi Jonæ Opera Latine Conscripta, Jakob Benediktsson edidit, Hafniæ,
1951, vol. 2 (Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana, Vol. X), p. 57 (quoting Bdrdar saga Snæ-
fellsdss), p. 69 (quoting Pordar saga Hredu).
48 Eyrbyggja saga, ed. E. (3. Sveinsson (tslenzk fornrit, vol. IV), Reykjavik,
1935, Inngangur, p. lix. W. H. Vogt, in his edition of Vatnsdæla saga (Altnordische
Saga-Bibliotelc, vol. 16, Halle, 1921), Einleitung, pp. xii and xix, thinks the two
versions are largely similar, but does not commit himself on the closeness of their
relationship, and shows that there were almost certainly errors and omissions in
Vatnshyrna which do not appear in AM 445b; Finnur Jonsson, in his edition of the
saga (see note 7, above), Indledning, p. ii, says the two are very closely related,
and suggests that they may be “sister” Mss. But in faet the extent of the deviation
from Vatnshyrna in AM 445b, f.3 is considerable, very similar to that found in
Eyrbyggja saga, and mueh greater than that in the dream-pættir. One possible