Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.2003, Síða 260
218*
INTRODUCTION
contained in it, now fols. 37v-66r in 391. Ámi did not check this extra
material but marked it off in four sections by drawing lines across the
page between them and making marginal notes at the beginning of
each. His first and second notes refer to p. 35 and p. 47 (of 391) re-
spectively, the third reads ‘Seqventia miracula in Membraná Scal-
holtensi defuere’, the fourth ‘[p]ertinent ad superiora’. The sections
comprise fols. 37v-47rl2 (begins ‘Lærdir menn’, ends ‘mikillra
ohæginda etc’ = H 30/1-41/4); 47rl3-51v5 (begins ‘han mælti þa’,
ends ‘handarmein mikid etc.’ = H 53/24-61/3); 51v6-58v3 (begins ‘Sa
uar einn madr’, ends ‘oc hinn heilaga Jon bp’ = H chs. 64-65, 70-75,
77, 79-80, 95); 58v4-66r (begins ‘Þad bar til þa er Jon’, ends ‘med hin-
ni mestu vinattu’ = the 392 (L4) version of L 10/1-15/38; cf. the textual
notes to these passages in L).
It might seem natural to assume that Árni Magnússon had this ma-
terial copied at or near the time he made his own collation of the 391
and 392 texts, but it is difficult to be precise about the circumstances
and date. The ‘etc’ at the end of the first and second sections of the
supplement shows that the copyist had an S2 text to refer to, pre-
sumably 391 itself. Árni Magnússon had this and the Þormóður vol-
ume with the 392 Jóns saga from 1701 onwards, and both were cer-
tainly with him in Iceland 1709-12, possibly on his earlier visits as
well. Árni’s pret. ‘defuere’ at the start of the third supplementary
section is of debatable significance, but it could imply that the Skál-
holt vellum, i.e. AM 234 fol., which he had first seen in 1687 but
which did not come into his permanent possession until 1699, two
years before he borrowed the 392 Jóns saga, was not to hand when
he wrote his note. The inference might then be that he was in Iceland
at the time. This remark and the other cross-references might in fact
convey the impression that he was writing them as much for some-
one else’s benefit as his own. If that is the case, we could assume
that, having denied Jón Halldórsson the loan of the 392 volume it-
self, he took steps to see that he left 391 with him in a state which
provided the bulk of the material which the H text has additional to
the S version, available partly in his marginal annotation (whenever
that was inserted), partly in the supplement under discussion. On this
hypothesis, the supplementary material from 392 would have been
copied in Iceland 1711-12, designed to accompany 391 on its long
loan to Jón Halldórsson. Such circumstances might explain why that