Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2005, Síða 20
10
Jon Helgason
There is not much likeness between these two manuscripts early on
in the saga. A few characteristic variants may nevertheless be culled
from them, e.g. EgEA I, ch. 9,15 høkulangur, 9,100 odalborner, 10,13
vid suabuit omitted, 16,7 soddann fortølur. Irrespective of how these
correspondences are to be explained, there is so much variation that a
direct textual relationship is out of the question. But from the middle of
the seventeenth chapter (p. 23 in EgEA I) the two manuscripts begin to
resemble each other in most significant respects and continue to do so
as long as they both last. It is obvious how this came about. In the sev-
enteenth century there existed a manuscript of Egils saga of which the
early part as far as the middle of ch. 17 had been lost. The bulk of the
saga in 463 and 560 derives from this manuscript. But two copyists sup-
plied the missing early chapters independently of each other, and here
the text in 463 is from a different source than that in 560.
There can be no doubt about the nature of the text supplied in 463
from the beginning of ch. 1 to the middle of ch. 17: it derives directly or
indirectly from M. There are, however, very occasional readings from
another source: EgEA I, ch. 1,26 kappzmadur {kaup- M), 2,4 haustbodi
{-bioti M), 9,100 odalborner {adal- M). These readings are the same as
in AM 128 fol., which in all likelihood was also written by Brynjolfur å
Efstalandi (see the end of § 8 below5 6).
The beginning in 560 is more difficult to explain. It should be men-
tioned at the outset that the text does not begin until EgEA I, ch. 9,14.
This is not because the exemplar was defective but because leaves have
subsequently been lost from 560; what is missing here would fit pre-
cisely on to one quire of eight leaves.7 There is also an omission be-
tween ch. 17,6 and 17,22 where the scribe seems not to have observed
that anything was lacking:
5 [Cf. Annålar 1400-1800 I (Reykjavrk 1922-27), p. 485; Påll Eggert Olason, Islenzkar
æviskrår IV (Reykjavfk 1951), p. 19.]
6 [Where it is pointed out that the exemplar of 128 was AM 458 4to. Thus the implication
here is that Brynjolfur a Efstalandi introduced these variants in 463 either directly from
458 or from his transcript of the latter in 128. Since the same variants are in the subse-
quently identified duplicate copy R: 698 (see note 4), the second alternative would mean
that 128 was written not later than 1661.]
7 [This interpretation by Jon Helgason is questioned in EgEA I, introduction p. LXI, § 4.5,
note 45 (Michael Chesnutt).]