Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.1997, Síða 137
cxxxv
defective, or where the text can be thought to have appeared incomprehensi-
ble to the scribe. In such cases he has either sought to improve the text or,
more rarely, shortened it. Instances are also found, however, of patent errors
being reproduced.
A comparison of the two texts of Jómsvíkinga saga, undertaken as a further
sample, has given a slightly less favourable impression. There are the usual
changes in language, and quite numerous minor changes in wording (general-
ly not affecting the sense), such as omissions (e.g. báðir Cederschiöld
1874, 5434), additions (552 + enn) and substitutions (559 konungr (abbrevi-
ated)] hann). And there is failure several times to cope with a defective place
in the manuscript, most notably at 60' where the leaf has been trimmed. More
serious are some fifteen places where the scribe appears to have misread the
text, sometimes through not taking enough care over the old script, e.g.
S7]S17
54.33 þeir uoro uinir goðir ok Gormr konungr (most words abbrev.)} Þad var vin
gödur Gorms köngs
55.34 Haralldr Iarl fréttir (all abbrev.)] hefur Jarl frett
58.20 þer segit (both abbrev.)] þeir seigja (significantly ajfecting the sense)
Perhaps the most serious, however, are the fairly large omissions, about fif-
teen in number, and at times as much as a sentence. Some of them might be
accidental, but in most instances the omitted phrase or sentence may have
been thought dispensible, and the omission leaves the text in readable form.
Examples:
56.28-9 ok hann uar hinn vinsælsti] +
57.26-7 ok-nockurr] -r
63.2-3 konungr-drecka] -r (the preceding sentence ends with dryckiu.ynít above
drecka in S7)
In spite of these faults, however, S17 reproduces a large proportion of the text
of Jómsvíkinga saga tolerably well.
It must be assumed that changes of the same kinds have also occurred in
the writing of Mírmanns saga in S17, though difficult to detect and impos-
sible to be sure of in the absence of the exemplar. Sometimes comparison
with the other texts may suggest that an omission has occurred in S17 (if not
already in its exemplar), e.g. after landsmónnum C 56, after betre C 382. At
other places, to which attention is drawn in the footnotes to the text, failures
of sense or syntax (e.g. C 100, 143), unlikely words or forms of words (e.g.
C 32, 67) and forms which seem to be the result of wrong expansion of