Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Page 199

7-i Jon Eggertsson group
169
13. Hake var jaa atcomiN da>5a tda da>5r er hann var (om. 18, 37) lagidr a
bålit. (33.12-13)
14. Eptir J'tat com a>n (Ani 18, 37) konongrenn til uppfala. (35.14—15)
15. Ale var konongr at upfqlom rxxv. vetra (xxv. 18; xxv. vetra 37) a5r
Starkajar hiN gamli drap hann. (36.2—3)
16. Vpfala oc red {aar rikino eN rxxv vetra (xxv. 18, 37) (36.4)
17. Si\>an dreif til hans mart (midt 18, 37) illjaydis fole. (38.9—10)
18. for til OROsto i moti (mot 18, 37) Tunna (39.1)
The text in 35 is here corrected by Arni Magnusson and represents
the text of Kringla with great accuracy. In fourteen of the instances
where the text in 18 differs from 35, the same variation is found in 37.
In the four remaining instances, numbers 1, 3, 4 and 15, 37 has the
same text as 35. Numbers 1 and 3 can without more ado be explained
as corrections based on the scribe’s own reasoning. Nor is it hard to
explain numbers 4 and 15 as such, particularly since the scribe may
have been well acquainted with the text. It is, however, striking that
three of the four variants that are not carried over to 37 are found at
the beginning of the text, among the first four variants, only interrup-
ted by number 2, which does not have any particular significance.
An analysis of the prologue shows that here too 37 follows 18
throughout. There is also, however, one example where 37 shows
agreement with 35 while 18 is different:
tøcom ver JiaJa alt fyrer satt er i jjeim quæjiom (ordum 18) finz
(AM37 fol: fol. lv; HkrFJ I: 6.1)
It is quite clear from the context that kvadi are being referred to and
the correction does not, therefore, presuppose that the scribe had the
manuscript in front of him.
There are three particular scribal errors in 37 that show clearly that
18(1) was the direct exemplar for 37(1). If we look at the errors beside
images of the script in 18, we will immediately see the reason for the
misreadings: