Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2005, Blaðsíða 41
Observations on Some Manuscripts of Egils saga
31
75,10 ætlat] + enn haf {x>ck bondi fyrer truleyka {rinn.
75,20 lei5] + og bad vel fyrer Vlfe.
75,60 vndan] + pviat [tad er ozs hin mesta skomm, ad iiij einer
menn komist vndann xix monnum og fo mædder adr, mun
pad og vyda fara.
76,16 menn] + og vndi vid all jlla.
76,19 borsteins] + vard borst(einn) allgladr vid heim komu hanz.
77,44 Mosfelli] + og pottu vera mikils hattar menn.
78,75 å5r] + Eg(ill) settist vpp og tok til ad kueda.
78,104 sigrsæll] + vitur og forsiall, og po hardradr.
If we search the variant apparatus of EgFJ for similar examples from W,
we do find a few e.g. at (EgFJ, page and line) 56,6, 59,17, 64,15,
117,23,157,3, 162,12,213,21, 226,22,254,6, and 256,11. There is, how-
ever, the major difference that these additions occur not only in W but
also in related manuscripts including 463/560. Additions unique to W
have been found in only two, fairly widely separated, places: EgFJ, pp.
40,10 P(orolfr) let ser fatt um finnaz ok let ual af mundu reida and
314,11 ok uardferd hans hin haduligdsta (not in 463/560). But no sig-
nificance can be attached to the first of these because no other manu-
script of the B-redaction is available for comparison.
It is consequently most improbable that such frequent additions as
those in 458 listed above were also to be found in *W. We may deduce
that from somewhere near the top of EgFJ, p. 272 [= ca. EgEA I, ch.
75,5-9], 458 was in all likelihood following Y.
If this reasoning is correct, it follows that two no longer extant leaves
of W have been transcribed in 458. It is difficult to make a more precise
calculation because of uncertainty as to whether six or seven leaves are
lost from W at this place. If the number of lost leaves was only six, the
second of them probably ended on EgFJ, p. 272 [EgEA I, beginning of
ch. 75]; if there were seven, it must have ended at the [top] of EgFJ, p.
270 [EgEA I, beginning of ch. 74].14 The boundary between *W and Y
was therefore situated at one or other of these places.15
It was mentioned a little earlier that 458 starts a new chapter at EgEA
14 [The reference to the ‘top’ of EgFJ, p. 270, is the translator’s conjecture. The original
refers to p. 270 “nedst”, but this would not be in accord with Jon Helgason’s calculation
of the extent of the missing leaves and is surely an error for “efst”.]
15 [Shortly after the appearance of this article Jon Helgason expressed his preference for
the view that only six leaves were lost (Manuscripta Islandica 3, introduction p. VI), and
that the boundary should be located “perhaps a little before FJ 27210” (ibid. p. XI). Cf.
also the formulation “probably of six leaves rather than seven” on p. 5 above.]