Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1957, Page 456

436
NOTES
SkarSså used for his compilation. It might be objected that it
can be seen from AJ’s version of a number of names that names
which stood at the beginning of paragraphs in his original lacked
their initial letters; and that we know that this was the case in
the Resenian vellum because generally a space has been left for
such initials in the copy AM 107 fol. Missing initials were sup-
plied by Bjorn å SkarSså and in some cases he made the same
mistake as AJ, see III 2084 Brandero, where Sk has Brandur for
the correct Eråndr (S has .randr, H .rondr) ; similarly 23420
Gunsteinus = Ski5, while SH have [EJysteinn. But AJ has yet
more divergent name-forms (where Sk follows S) ; here his vari-
ants can most easily be explained by assuming that wrong initials
have been supplied in a similar way, see III 19531 Væfreyderus:
[EJyfreydur S, 1984 Vlfo: [AJlfur S, 20218 Oleifus: [EJilifr S,
2104 Sauda-Biorn: [Rjauda- S, 22213 Thormodus: [AJrmodr S,
22336 Gunstenus: [VJesteiN S, 2257 Onundus: [EJyvindr S,
22720 Geirraudus: [HJerraudur S, 24832 Gunnleifus: [G]Eir- S,
25313 Baudulfus an Raudulfus: [BJaudolfur S, 257” Gysserus:
[Q]zur S, 26016 Eyulfus Bialferus: [BJiolfr S (AJ’s reading
having arisen from supplying the initial in two different ways),
26114-16 Bergulfus: [HJeriolfr S, 26329 Horderus: [B]ardr S,
26432 Bilbalderus: [V]ilballdr S, 2666 Gunstenus: [EJysteiN S.
—The forms of these names can be explained in two ways: either
AJ had a manuscript which, like the Resenian vellum, lacked
initial letters, or alternatively the wrong initials had already been
supplied in his source. At any rate, the forms must have come
into his manuscript before he revised it from Sk, and he did not
correct them from Sk. These readings provide no proof that AJ
used the same vellum as Bjorn å SkarSså. It was after all a usual
thing for vellums to lack initial letters; we recall that this was
not only the case in the Resenian manuscript but also to some
extent at least in Hauksbok.
Finally, we may refer to the remarks made above in the Intro-
duction, ch. III no. 28, on the name-form Naddocus in AJ’s
earlier works. This form also appears in Specimen (III 17913),
but AJ here adds “aliis Naddodus”. Taken with the evidence
of the earlier works this favours the hypothesis that he had the
form Naddocus from his S-manuscript, and that this was the