Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.10.2003, Page 90
72*
M (AM 445 b 4to)
be proposed, if one assumes standard quires of four double leaves. A solid
line represents a surviving leaf, a broken one a lost leaf.4 (On the JH
fragment, which is a remnant of the second of the two missing leaves
between ff. 6 and 7, see below, p. 78*.)
DIAGRAM
4 6 JH 7
5
Quire 1 Quire 2
8 9
10
11
Quire 3
It remains to give some estimate of the date and provenance of the
manuscript. There is important material for discussion in the article by John
McKinnell, “The Reconstruction of Pseudo-Vatnshyrna”, pp. 304-38, and
also, in decreasing order of relevance to M, two articles by Stefán Karlsson
in the same volume of Opuscula in 1970, “Um Vatnshyrnu”, pp. 279-303,
and “Resenshandrit”, pp. 269-78.
McKinnell claims that three fragmentary manuscripts, AM 564 a 4to,
AM 445 c I 4to, and our AM 445 b 4to, once formed part of the same
codex. To this he gave the name Pseudo-Vatnshyrna, because AM 564 a 4to
was previously thought to have been the only surviving part of the
manuscript Vatnshyrna, the main part of which perished in the great
conflagration of Copenhagen in 1728. This opinion was advanced by
Guðbrandur Vigfússon (1864) and it was generally accepted by scholars
until the publication of McKinnelTs and Stefán Karlsson’s articles.5
4 Pace McKinnell, p. 333, fn. 46, ff. 8 and 9 cannot have occupied the same double leaf since f. 8
is still conjugate with f. 11. Eyrbyggja saga begins on the same side, f. 5r, as Flóamanna saga
finishes. Further back than Flóamanna saga it is hardly possible to go, as the number of missing
leaves becomes too uncertain.
51 was offered this identification when I began work on Eyrbyggja saga in the 1950s; I naturally
accepted it without demur.