Gripla - 20.12.2004, Blaðsíða 35

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON STJÓRN 33
any diagnostic significance. Against the other points it can be observed that an
unbarred „j“-shaped nota for „ok“ is known in fourteenth-century manuscripts
(e.g. in Hauksbók and Mö›ruvallabók), and that examples of confusion of „c“
and „t“ are legion.
On the other hand, the style and phraseology of Stjórn II point firmly to
the thirteenth century as its date of origin, and some of its word-forms seem to
argue an exemplar of some antiquity, e.g. mælag 32320, heyrdag 32324,
bygguir 34329, styrkia 32632 (adj., sg. acc. fem.), littad (= líttat) 33636. A full
survey cannot be attempted here, but I may cite a few examples which indi-
cate at least a relatively early date for the original Stjórn II. Expressions with
an archaic ring are found, such as „hlutum ™ kasta. huert huergi skal eiga“,
3474, and „huatki er skadi ma at verda“ 30325. The word „au›ræ›i“ which
occurs twice (34515,38), enjoyed some popularity in Icelandic religious writings
of the first half of the thirteenth century, but after that it appears to have fallen
almost completely out of fashion (Foote 1963:62–76). Another rarity is
„skelmisdrep“ (= pestilentia in the Vulgate), which also occurs twice (32631,
3447). The dictionaries have only one other instance of the word, in Tómas
saga erkibyskups, but it there occurs in text derived from the early Life of St
Thomas which Bergr Gunnsteinsson translated from a lost Latin source about
1200 or not long afterwards26.
A last point to note is that Storm singled out the word „réttir“ (= caulae in
the Vulgate, Unger 1862:34124, 34317) as a distinctively Icelandic term (1886b:
253). It is admittedly also found in Stjórn I (17111), but there it might con-
ceivably stem from the use of an older translation. (On the other hand, the
same word was, and is, used in the Faroes, and it may not have been quite as
foreign to knowledgeable Norwegians as Storm believed.)
Examples such as these cannot of course clinch the matter, but they lend
considerable support to the view that Stjórn II should be counted a translation
made in the first half of the thirteenth century and probably in Iceland rather
than in Norway. Seip (1957:15), it is true, maintained that a Norwegian
original can be detected behind Stjórn II, but his one piece of evidence is the
erroneous „frykr“ for „fnykr“ (32326), which can hardly be counted sufficient
to justify his conclusion. His ideas about the date of origin of the Stjórn II
translation will be discussed below.
On all counts it must seem most probable that the earliest biblical transla-
26 Unger 1869:53724; Eiríkur Magnússon II 1883:27424. — On the different recensions see
Foote 1961:403–50; Stefán Karlsson 1973:212–243.