Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.2003, Blaðsíða 45
THE S RECENSION
7*
of ‘badzc’ lral8 (29/25), and Stefán Karlsson (EIM VII, 55) suggests
that three isolated medio-passives in (zt) (the usual ending is <z»
elsewhere in the Jóns saga text may reflect <sc)/(zc) forms in the
exemplar. Such rare possible survivals can carry no significant weight.
Stefán Karlsson has noted (EIM VII, 55) that the Jóns saga epi-
logue, 65/8-22, and the Augustinus saga text show the prepositional
forms meðr and viðr alongside með and við, while in the rest of the
Jóns saga text only með and við occur. (They are usually abbreviated;
the latter is written out ‘vit’ at e.g. 4rbl7 (63/64), as also in Augustinus
saga, 5vbl7, Hms. I, 152/1.) It may be added that the first pers. pl.
pron., normally abbreviated insular <p> with the erlir curl, is found
written out as ‘vær’ only in the epilogue, 4vb4, 15 (65/10, 17), and in
Augustinus saga, 5val0 (Hms. I, 151/5). Stefán Karlsson suggests that
the different forms of the preposition may indicate that the epilogue
was composed later than the rest of the S recension of Jóns saga.
Other possibilities may be considered, but the fact that the end of Jóns
saga and the Augustinus saga have these features in common might
favour the conclusion that both texts were already together in one
codex when the scribe of 221 copied them. A post-1264 date has to be
put on that exemplar (see above), which means that it was no more
than one generation older than the transcription in 221. That gives a
vague terminal buffer-zone, say about 1270, before which the S recen-
sion of Jóns saga, whose oldest extant remnants are in 221, must have
originated.
The transcript given here of the Jóns saga text from AM 221 fol. be-
gins in each column with the first word or part of a word that can be
read with reasonable assurance. Lost parts between leaves and
columns and illegible parts within columns are supplied from S2, the
former between bars, the latter in italic (cf. S 29/12 t.n.). In other texts
printed in this edition accents over <i> are not reproduced, but all ac-
cents visible in 221 are given. This is because the scribe writes both
<éi> and <eí), and whether the accent in the latter case is meant as a
diphthong-marker or an (i)-marker remains uncertain. Elsewhere ac-
cents are displaced in varying degrees; they occasionally appear over
the consonant following the vowel they were intended to mark; see
e.g. ‘fóng’ lvbll (33/21), ‘saúng’ 2rb21 (36/11), ‘sárr’ 3val6 (44/4),
‘géngr’ 4rbl5 (63/63).