Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2005, Page 18
8
Jon Helgason
Time and again the readings of the manuscripts are downright incor-
rectly reported, e.g. (EgFJ, page and line):
6,7 W (and the transcript of W consulted by Finnur Jonsson)
reads dcatt, not dælt.
27,8 The words ord ... ok are not omitted in K, which in faet has
konungz ordsending, og par med jarteigner.
44.12 It is stated that stormannligsta is wanting in K a; actually
the whole phrase ok - stormannligsta is wanting.
58,14 8 reads not ordit var but hann hafde heim haft.
60,6 Neither y nor 8 omits ok - med; rather y has ok sva hitt and
8 ok sva a pat.
60.13 W and y do not have pat but [the suspensions] p. and poR. (=
Porolfr).
61,11 y and 8 do not have steig but ge(c)k.
62,1 The word hvast is not missing in y.
62,2-3 8 does not have Konungr kom vid Sandnes of nott but peir
koma aptan [dag]s vid Sandnes.
63,8-9 The words lét - Hann are not missing in 8.
171,14-15 The clause på - fylkt is missing not in t] but in K.
This list could be greatly expanded.
ii4 The section of Finnur Jonsson’s introduction about the manuscripts
and their mutual relations is mueh briefer than it should have been and
insufficient on most points. The editor has given higher priority to cal-
culating dates, interpreting the strophes, and polemicising against
Jessen about the historicity of the saga than to establishing the text by
detailed serutiny of the manuscripts. Many problems are left unsolved.
Generally speaking, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that this edi-
tion has so many shorteomings as to be of mueh less use for a critical
study of the saga text than might have been expected. In all matters of
any importance, the only viable course is to go back to the manuscripts
themselves.
At EgFJ, introduction pp. xxvii-xxix, Finnur Jonsson lists the paper
manuscripts of Egils saga known to him, concluding with the following
fairly categorical statement: “Alle disse papirshåndskrifter er uden no-
gen som helst selvstændig værd; derfor har jeg ved textkritiken ikke
kunnet tage hensyn til dem [None of these paper manuscripts are of any
independent value whatever, and I have therefore not been able to take
them into account for purposes of textual criticism]”. The observant