Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series B - 01.10.1983, Blaðsíða 41

XXXVII
Son braut Stafena’. In SkráLbs this has been interpreted
as meaning that Hannes Gunnlaugsson wrote the MS
and all editors who have used JS 27 accepted this
interpretation3 - until Jónas Kristjánsson in 1966
expressed doubt as to its correctness in his edition of
Svarfdœla saga, cf. below.
In 1955, when JónHelgason (in Kvœðabók úr Vigur
B, p. 9) identified the scribe of the greater part of
426 as Magnús Þórólfsson, on the basis of the
information in the preface to BL Add. 4868, he felt
constrained to abandon his previous opinion that
the hand in 426 was identical with that in 27. If the
three MSS are all examined together, however, there
can be no doubt that the hands in them are identical.
The statement in JS 27 that Hannes Gunnlaugsson
‘braut Stafena’ must, therefore, mean something
other than that he was the scribe.
In Svarfdœla saga, Rit Handritastofnunar II (Reyk-
javík, 1966), p. lix, Jónas Kristjánsson discusses the
meaning of the phrase. He points out that the hand
in JS 27 does not resemble the hand in other MSS
which are ascribed to Hannes Gunnlaugsson, for
example ÍB 144 8vo and Lbs. 228 fol. He therefore
suggests that ‘braut Stafena’ means not ‘wrote’ but
‘decorated (with initials)’.
In a further article on this topic4 Jónas Kristjáns-
son demonstrates that JS 27 is in Magnús Þórólfs-
son’s hand and quotes a number of examples of the
3 L. F. Tan-Haverhorst, op.cit., p. cxxn; D. Slay, The Manu-
scripts of Hrólfs Saga Kraka, p. 65; Jónas Kristjánsson, Dínus saga
drambláta, Riddarasögur I (Reykjavík, 1960), p. xix; Jónas Krist-
jánsson, Viktors saga ok Blávus, Riddarasögur II (Reykjavík,
1964), p. Lxn.
4 ‘Hannes Gunnlaugsson braut stafina’, Afmœlisrit til dr. phil.
Steingríms J. Þorsteinssonar prófessors, 2. júlí 1971 (Reykjavík,
1971), pp. 89-96.