Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.10.2003, Blaðsíða 29

Manuscripts and editions
11*
errors, e g E’s omission of ‘læst’ at W 41.32; ‘læst’ is found too in M and
Aa. E shares with W the curious repetition, though in a different place, of
the phrase ‘hon var skarz kona mikil’ (E 41.17, 21, W 41.18, 26). Other
unsupported readings, presumably errors, are ‘bloðit af heyfino ne rifvnne
er hðn hellt á’ 41.69 (‘heyfino ne’ is almost certainly wrong as the
bloodstained hay has been mentioned already), ‘bla/tt miok oc lá ofan miok
fyrir þeim’ 41.118. The repetition of the word ‘miok’ is awkward; in the
position corresponding to the second ‘miok’ W M * *Ahave ‘oppt’.
As previously used, however, the term ‘B class’ meant simply non-*A
and non-M, and no explicit argumentation has been adduced to support the
hypothesis that E shared a lost intermediary with W G (*B, see above) as
opposed to M and *A. Discussion of the relationship among the main
independent manuscripts E W M and *A may be clarified by means of the
Collation (Appendix B, pp. 133*-43* below), which contains a list of their
differences over the two areas covered by E. It is clear from the Collation
§ 1 that the textual transmission of Eyrbyggja saga divides at a fairly early
point in time into two streams: E W and M *A. (For the relationship
between W and G see above, pp. 7*-10*; because G and E do not overlap, it
is only W that can represent W G in this analysis.) There are many
differences in wording between the two streams,32 but in most of the cases
the readings in either stream are equally plausible. However, a small
number of readings in E and W may be argued to be common errors, and
may therefore be regarded as evidence for E and *B belonging to the same
class:
(a) E W 41.100-2 read ‘rlikit var þa (lik hennar uar W) fyrst borit (fært
W) i kirkiu ok ger at kista vm dagin eptir. Þoroddr let bera vt reckio kleðin’.
M *A take the temporal expression um daginn eptir (‘eptir um daginn’ M)
as belonging with the following sentence (‘eptir vm daginn let Þ(oroddr)
(bera) wt rekkiv~klædi henar’ M 42.102-3), which seems the more logical
sequence. In E W the making of the coffin is put off until the day after the
corpse has been taken to the church. This seems less reasonable than the
arrangement in M *A and is probably a copying error, one easily accounted
for, but which confirms that E and W have a common ancestor.
32 There is a useful touchstone as to whether a paper manuscript is descended from an *A text, a
*B text, or M, in ÍFIV, chapter 58, p. 160. *A MSS say that Ospakr loaded his spoil on four hor-
ses, whereas W (at this point the only independent non-M, non-*A source) speaks of six. (The
Roman numerals iv and vi have been confused.) The story as told in M, however, refers to seven
horses. It is hardly possible to say which is the original figure; ‘vij’ is perhaps the most likely,
since it is the fuller numeral, for it is a little less difficult to drop minims than to add them.