Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.2003, Side 233
THE L RECENSION
191*
recorded as the contents of sr. Þorstein’s large tome are represented in
Arni Magnússon’s excerpts in Bartholin, vol. XII (Már Jónsson, Ámi
Magnússon, 37-39). Jón Helgason, Opuscula VIII, 42-43, made a case
for thinking that sr. Þorstein’s volume was one of several garnered for
Resen’s benefit by Christopher Heidemann, governor of Iceland at the
time, and Bishop Þórður of Skálholt, and that they were not sent to
Copenhagen until 1687. There seems to be no doubt, however, that
Már Jónsson is right in assigning the compilation in Bartholin, vol.
XII, to the winter of 1684-85, and in his opinion the references to the
Hb. fragments were written soon after the excerpts from Jóns saga
had been made (Már Jónsson, Ámi Magnússon, 355, n. 33). Since the
identity of the fragments is established, the date of these marginal en-
tries is immaterial in the study of Jóns saga. All the same, it is of some
interest that Árni Magnússon apparently gave no sign of recollecting
them when he obtained some of the other leaves of AM 371 4to be-
tween 1694 and 1702; and apart from the notes in Bartholin, vol. XII,
there seems to be no further evidence of his acquaintance with the lost
last leaf of Kristni saga in Hauksbók.
It will be seen from the list on p. 188* that there is a sentence in
Bartholin, vol. XII, which corresponds to L' 24/19-20: ‘Historiam
Ionæ 0gmundi Episcopi dicitur Gunnlaugus frater Latine composu-
isse’, with a reference to Jóns saga, ‘Cap 18’. (The same page has an-
other note of similar import but ending: ‘ex petitione Gudmundi Sa-
cerdotis (postea Episcopi)’ and referring to ‘Hist. Gudmundi Epis-
copi’ as the source.) The ‘18’ reference recurs in Ámi’s note, printed
by Jón Helgason, Gripla IV, 50, from NKS 1836 4to: ‘Vitam Sancti Jo-
hannis Episcopi Holensis latiné composuit Frater Gunnlogus. Jóns
saga Biskups. 18. Ex petitione Gudmundi Episcopi Holensis. Gudmund-
arsaga’. The number must be that of the chapter in the Resen volume
(cf. below). Ámi Magnússon did not know the L prologue, omitted in
205 and its derivatives, hence the reference only to Abbot Arngrím’s
Guðmundar saga to authenticate the ‘petitio’ of Bishop Guðmundr.
Numerous variants confirm that Ámi’s excerpts were from a text
derived from 205. In no case does he have readings closer to L' than
205 has, and he reproduces its errors, e.g. (L1 readings first, Barth. XII
= 205 second): 2/18 til byskups] -r ; 14/49 fynði] funderat; 16/4
spandi] hafde; 17/13 vm] kringum; 17/20-21 gat meistarinn enn séét]
gáer meistare enn og sier; 19/6 vetra] árum; 21/34 ver ventum] mig