Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.10.2003, Page 25
Manuscripts and editions
7*
(Vatnshyrna is the most polished and overall the best manuscript of
Eyrbyggja saga. Yet I think that there are examples where there have been
changes of wording where the scribe thought them old-fashioned or quaint,
and this may best be evidenced when 162 (= E) and M are parallel; in such
cases it is often they which have the older wording).24 This conclusion
seems to me very reasonable.
In addition to the three editions mentioned above, several scholars have
usefully consulted the vellum fragments - in particular, mention should be
made of Finnur Jónsson in the preparation of Den norsk-islandske skjalde-
digtning,25 of Jón Helgason when preparing the facsimile of W in
Manuscripta Islandica26 and of John McKinnell, who minutely examined
the spelling of M in the course of writing his article in Opuscula21 referred
to in more detail in chapter III below. But it was always a cumbersome task
to consult these vellum fragments and one that was rendered still more
difficult by their mournful state of preservation.28
C. Manuscript filiation
1. THE RELATION BETWEEN W AND G
In considering the relationships among the independent manuscripts, that is
the vellums E W M G and the paradosis of the paper manuscripts Aa Aj Ak
Z, referred to as *A, one can advantageously begin with the relatively easy
question of the relation between W and G.29
The manuscripts W and G share a very clear case of scribal error,
provided by a phrase in the account of how Þóroddr acquired the nickname
24 Einar Ól. Sveinsson in IFIV, p. lviii.
25 Finnur Jónsson 1908-15.
26 Man Isl III.
27 McKinnell 1970.
28 See Rode 1985 for, among other things, a study of the stylistic distinctions between the A and
B classes of texts.
29 The affiliations of the paper manuscripts H and Th (see list of sigla, p. 154*) are not discussed
in detail in this volume; it can, however, be stated that the independent parts of H and Th are
closely related to W and G. H is the only manuscript other than G (1.8) to contain the words ‘vitnr
madr ok agætur. jallen ati s(on) er Biorn het’. At this point W and E are absent, Th is not inde-
pendent, and all other manuscripts have a haplography; in the case of M this comes about because
the first three chapters of M are copied from a different exemplar from the rest, one close to *A,
which itself contained the haplography. The passage in G just quoted was taken into the text by
Guðbrandur Vigfússon and later by Einar Ól. Sveinsson, but is not present in Gering’s edition, cf
p. 5*.