Studia Islandica - 01.06.1956, Síða 40

38
7.3. In the eleven passages quoted in section 7.2 V and R.
as a rule agree in that both have more or less the same
surplus over against M. This can be seen in the passages
2, 3, 5, 7, 8,11; in 6 V and R. have the same longer hypo-
tactical construction; in 10 V and R. agree in omitting a
phrase which is extant in M.
While this agreement between V and R. is evident in
8 instances, we observe agreement between M and R.
against V in almost as many cases, viz. in the passages
6, 8, 9, 10 (three times), 11.
Some of the passages will be discussed in sections 8
and 9.
Apart from these passages there are a good many
more smaller points of agreement between V R., but
also of M R.
The scribes must have taken some liberty in choosing
a synonym, as e. g. í lægð eina V for í rjóðrit M, í
rjóðr eitt R., in adding an adverb like heim (V), upp
(R.), or in omitting a word (raunar V). They some-
times have chosen some other phrasing.
A possible explication I think is to be found in the
assumption that a writer had a text dictated to him,
from a manuscript, not word by word, but in whole
periods. Smaller deviations from the dictated text were
no matter of importance for a mediaeval scribe, not
even for an author.Omissions or additions of longer para-
graphs or periods of course cannot be accounted for in
this way.
8.1. The relationship of V and R. is evident and close.
It is especially on those passages which V and R. have
in common over against M that our interest is fo-
cussed next.