Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Page 202

172
ReLATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSCRIPTS
ing to one leaf in the codex.111 The first covered the end of Ynglinga
saga and most of Halfdanar saga svarta (HkrFJI: 84.1—95.11), the other
Haraids saga harfagra from ch. 8 to ch. 14 (HkrFJ 1:106.14-117.17). In
18 both lacunae fail within the part of the text written in the first hånd,
i. e. 18(1). In 37, however, the text deriving from Kringla covers neither
of the lacunae. Jens Nilssøn’s text is, as we know, from Jdfraskinna, and
it begins before the first lacuna in Kringla.
In 18 the scribe initially refirained from filling out the text of the first
lacuna. He left the rest of the page (fol. I2r) blank, and continued by
copying the next leaf in the exemplar on fol. I2v. He later went back to
fill out the missing text, but there was not room for it all on the page.
He wrote what would not fit on a new leaf, which was inserted in front
as fol. 11, and he indicated the sequence of the text by using insertion
signs. The second lacuna was filled in straight away as continuous text.
Since the main theme of this monograph is the transmission of
Kringla and 18 is one of the most important authorities for its text,
it seems appropriate to describe this manuscript in full and also to try
to determine the various sources of the text used to fill the lacunae. In
18 the scribe clearly marks the beginning and the end of the lacunae.
In the annotation beside the end of the first lacuna he refers to alia
membrana (see above p. 156) and we can hardly take this as anything
other than Jdfraskinna itself, ‘the other vellum’ (with more or less the
same text as Kringla).
The scribe of 18(1) marked the second lacuna with the annotation
deest unum folium qui defectus e. msc. Wormiano completns, (fol. 13V,
HkrFJ I 106.14, above, p. 156). The manuscript designated msc.
Wormianum is 37, which was owned by the Worm family until Årni
Magnusson obtained it in 1709. It seems appropriate to interpret this
111 The marginal annotation beside the first lacuna on fol. lir gives the impression that
this lacuna is due to two leaves missing, but there can only have been one (see above
p. 43).