Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.2003, Page 226
184*
INTRODUCTION
These agreements suggest that 57 was also derived from the same
sub-archetype as L34, or at least not from the immediate antecedent of
L1. Connections between the witnesses to the L recension can thus
only be summarily and vaguely traced like this:
*L
*La *L(3
L1 L2 57 L34
The L recension was most probably composed in the 1320s (see pp.
125*-26*). The postulated *L(3 would belong between that date and
about 1340-50, when 57 was written.
2.2. Derivative manuscripts of the L recension
All the paper manuscripts containing this recension were directly or
indirectly derived from L1. They are as follows, given in the order in
which they are described below: AM 205 fol., Don. var. 1, vol. XII
(excerpts), AM 396 fol., AM 210 fol., Thott 1748 4to, NKS 1202 fol.,
Lbs. 795 4to, Lbs. 140 4to, JS 629 4to, Lbs. 1573 4to, Lbs. 671 4to,
Stock. papp. fol. nr 2, JS 21 fol., Lbs. 1402 4to.
AM 205 fol.
On this manuscript and its provenance see Bysk.s., 30-31; cf.
Skarðsárbók, xv-xvii; on its make-up D. Slay, Bibl. Arn. XXIV, 155. It
originally formed part of a larger collection of texts, the others now in
AM 109 fol. and 215 fol., written by Jón Gissurarson of Núpur in
Dýrafjörður (c. 1590-1648; see e.g. Safn I, 644-50; ÍÆ III, 118-19;
Handritaspjall, 80; Lögréttumannatal, 278-79; Gardar VIII, 78-81).
The volume containing them came to Arni Magnússon from Þorlákur,
son of Bishop Þórður Þorláksson of Skálholt (1675-97; ÍÆ V, 169-70;
Hafnarstudentar, 52), cf. Ami’s slip, printed AMKat. I, 170. It seems
most probable that it was presented to Arni on Þorlák’s arrival as a stu-