Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2005, Síða 52
42
Jon Helgason
455 4to in the hånd of the Rev. Helgi Grfmsson å Husafelli (d. 1691)
and AM 426fol. written for Magnus Jonsson f Vigur, probably by Magn-
us borolfsson (d. 1667; cf. Islenzk rit sidari alda, Second series 1 B
[Copenhagen 1955], p. 9). These were probably copied from JS 28 fol.,
but that cannot be stated as a faet for the time being.17 Finally there is
AM 457 4to, transcribed by Magnus Einarsson å Vatnshomi and sent to
Ami Magnusson in 1727, probably when it was brand new. The exem-
plar was a manuscript owned by Jon Håkonarson, Magnus Einarsson’s
father-in-law, and was in the hånd of the Rev. Jon Erlendsson; Bishop
Brynjolfur Sveinsson had owned it and given it to Helga Magnusdottir
f BræSratungu. This manuscript is JS 28 fol., cf. Skrå um handritasofn
Landsbokasafnsins II [Reykjavlk 1927], p. 459.
The study of Egils saga and of Iceland’s cultural history in the seven-
teenth century both require that these paper manuscripts and their mu-
tual relations should be more thoroughly investigated than can be done
here. One especially important point should, however, be made.
Given that the whole of the saga is present in these manuscripts de-
rived from M, but that two leaves are missing and at least one page vir-
tually illegible in M itself, it reflects a fairly remarkable lack of curio-
sity that the situation has not been thought about long ago, for there can
be no doubt whatever as to the explanation. The lost copy transcribed
by the namesakes Jon Gissurarson and Jon Erlendsson had been made
before the loss of the two leaves from M, and the whole text of M is in
other words preserved with the exception of the damaged areas on
f. 69v, where there were major lacunae in the old copy. How the copy-
ists have tried to repair this damage requires a separate investigation
that will not be attempted here.18
The extant copies of the lost passages from M are of course not ab-
solutely accurate representations of the original, for it is not to be ex-
pected that it was always read correctly. A clear instance of this is at the
beginning of the first lacuna in M: Eigil/ kastapi hanz hofpi a øxl sier,
17 [Bjami Einarsson later argued that 455 and 426 descend from different hyparchetypes
and that 426 is a sister manuscript, not a copy, of 28. He also identified two manuscripts
of this sub-group over and above those known to Jon Helgason. Cf. the article cited in the
next note and EgEAI, introduction pp. xlviii-li, §§ 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 3.1.8.]
18 [Such an investigation was made by Bjami Einarsson and published in article form as
“Um Eglutexta MoSruvallabokar i 17du aldar efterritum”, Gripla VIII, Reykjavlk 1994,
pp. 7-53, later summarised in the introduction to EgEA I.]