Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1970, Qupperneq 339

313
(before April, 1392, and perhaps before December, 1389)19, and
the carelessness shown in them (equalled only by No. 71) might
suggest that he was under some disability when he wrote them.
3.2. Accepting that Vatnshyrna itself was probably written between
1391 and 139520, it may be possible, by comparing the features of
AM 564a and AM 445e,I described above with Arm Magnusson’s
copies of Vatnshyrna, to arrive at some rough estimate of whether
the fragments seem later in purely orthographic terms. It is un-
necessary to repeat the arguments for the trustworthiness of
spelling in AM 448, 4to (E), AM 564c, 4to (C) and AM 555h, 4to (H),
which are given above by Stefån Karlsson21.
19 This is based on three changes within ForSur’s usage:
a) Initial,;, which in the Ms. and usually in the documents up to No. 76 (February,
1388) has a curl to the right of the headstave, is normally given a loop to the
left of it instead from No. 80 (December, 1389) onwards. Up to and including
No. 76, the documents show 42 cases of the “old” form and 6 of the “new”
(5 of these in No. 71); thereafter, there are 5 cases of the “old” form and 59
of the “new”.
b) Final 2, which does not usually project below the line, shows a long-tåiled
variant form, as in Ms. pi (peir), in the documents up to No. 85 (March, 1392)
(21 cases, against 36 of the usual, short-tailed form); this disappears from
No. 86 (April, 1392) onwards (21 possible cases), exeept in medr, influenced
by its traditional abbreviation. This change may have been to avoid confusion
with z (see c), below).
c) 2, which does not project below the line in the Ms. or in the documents up
to No. 76 (50 cases), thereafter develops a long-tailed variant, used alongside
the “old” form in Nos. 80, 85, 86, 89 (January, 1393) (—in these, there are
12 “old” and 11 “new” forms), and alone in App. 14 (October, 1393) and
No. 96 I (12 cases).
Assuming that .borøur wrote the two Ms. lines, a) would make it seem more likely
than not that the Ms. is earlier than December, 1389, b) would suggest a date
before April, 1392, and c) before October, 1393.
20 See Stefån Karlsson’s article above, sections 5.1 and 5.2.
21 See Stefån Karlsson, above, 4.3.0. Strictly speaking, the original for Årni
Magnusson’s paper copies should probably be referred to as Membrana Reseniana
rather than Vatnshyrna, in case Årni was mistaken in identifying it as Vatnshyrna,
but in the face of the strong evidence that that codex was the work of Magnus
I'oriiallsson (see Stefån Karlsson, above, 4.4.1.), such scruples seem perverse. When
Vatnshyrna is referred to in this article, it is therefore the Ms. which Årni calls
Vatnshornsbåk which is meant.