Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1960, Qupperneq 327

305
systems become clear. One system—as typified by page 50—
employs both types with a fair amount of frequency but with type
I predominating. Botb types of d are here found in various positions.
The otber system—as typified by page 51—gives numerical superiori-
ty to type II and restricts the usage of type I very sharply to positions
after l. The majority of occurrences are even confined to forms of
the one word gid. If we now consider the first six pages, which have
formed the nucleus of this investigation for the letters g and p, we
find the earlier results (in 2.2 and 3.3) substantiated. Pages 48
and 49 show the same system as page 50, while pages 52 and 53
agree with page 51. It seems unlikely to me that one scribe would
employ two such basically dif ferent systems.
5.1 One further letter requires brief mention, y13. Unfortunately,
I was able to investigate this only for pages 50 and 51. These pages,
however, again seem to reflect different scribal practices. On page
50 there occurs in 12 examples only the later type of y with the
right-hand stroke curving to the left. Page 51 shows 13 examples
of y. Of these, 5 are of the later type as on page 50, but 7 are of the
older type with the right-hand stroke showing a strong hook to the
right. One example may scarcely be counted, since the y is clearly
corrected from a u (51 :b:8 fylgia). This material of itself is very
inconclusive, but it agrees with the conclusions drawn earlier (4.5).
6.1. However insignificant each of these individual points of
investigation may be, added together they gain considerably in
importance. To what conclusions do they point? At least two
different systems of writing are clearly distinguishable in Gks.
1812. This conclusion, then, admits of several interpretations.
One may think, as does Spehr (see reference in footnote 8), that there
is only one scribe at work here, and that paleographic differences
are to be attributed to different originals from which the scribe was
working. The similarity between certain letters on page 50 and those
on page 51 is undeniable (cf. x in 50:a:ll and 51:a:4). However,
when it is a question not only of differences in paleographic details
but actually different systems (as is especially clear from the
considerations of d), a much more satisfactory interpretation is
gained, in my opinion, by considering the manuscript to be the work
13 On the various types of y see Seip, op. cit., pp. 20, 52.
Opuscula. — 20