Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1970, Blaðsíða 338

312
f.5vb are in a different hånd5, and this closely resembles those of
a number of documents in EAA7:
a) Those written by Dorbur Dorbarson, priest at Hoskuldsstabir,
Skagastrond, Hunavatnssysla and official at Holar (App. 13,
Nos. 76, 85, 86, 89, App. 14, No. 96 I, written between July,
1387 and July, 1395)16.
b) Nos. 70 (Holar, February, 1386) and 74 (Langahllb ytri, Horg-
årdalur, Eyjafjarbarsysla, February, 1387)17.
c) No. 71 (Holar, June, 1386).
d) No. 80 (Stabur, Reynisnes, Skagafjarbarsysla, December, 1389)16.
All these documents (especially No. 71) show a good deal of varia-
tion of form of letters, and this includes such a large measure of
agreement between them that it seems likely that Dorbur in faet
wrote them all. (For example, most of them show two or more forms
of g, but in all except the last (No. 96 I), one is rather unusual,
having a short stroke projecting vertieally downwards from the
bottom right-hand corner of the loop below the line).
The forms in the Ms. are closest to those in No. 70 and some of
those in No. 7118. If the separate authorship of these groups of
documents is insisted upon, this comparison means little, beyond
the general indication of date and area provided by the documents
—and it is theoretically possible that the scribes of the documents
might still have been using very similar forms thirty years later.
If, however, they are all the work of Dorbur Dorbarson, the Ms.
lines probably belong to the early period of his known work,
16 See EAA7, Indledning, section 5.1, p. lv, where it is noted that part of
Bps. B 11,1 (formerly AM 276,4to, this part written c 1389) is also in BorQur’s
hånd — however, I have not yet been able to consult this; and that EAA7, No.80,
(see below) shows the same orthography as the documents written by I>or5ur,
but is paleographically different. But incomplete identity does not, of course,
necessarily imply a different scribe, particularly in the case of one as variable as
I>or5ur.
17 See EAA7, Indledning, section 5.2, p. lvi; there, this hånd is said not
to be the same as a), but again, a different scribe is not necessarily implied.
18 Only these two have the same loose form of m, with a curved second ascender
far enough from the previous downward stroke to give the appearance of a v
in the middle of the letter; and only No. 71 shows exaetly the same variations
of the letter r as appear in the Ms.