Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.10.1977, Side 207

tion, it is tempting to accept Jakob Benediktsson’s liypothesis that the manusoript
of Hkr. translated in PCI was identical with that used by Hanssøn as a corrective
to F. The matter is scarcely susceptible of proof, partly because of the limited
use which Laurents Hanssøn made of his subsidiary manuscript and partly be-
cause PCI was revised by Ole Worm to an extent which cannot be exactly deter-
mined, the text from which Worm prepared his publication being unknown.
A critical analysis of the Hkr. text in PCI shows that the source employed in
the translation was not related to other, known manuscripts of Hkr. to the same
extent throughout the work.
1. Hkrl in the source used by Peder Clausson was independent of the x-class
(as also was Laurents Hanssøn’s subsidiary manuscript), but in the present State
of our knowledge it is not possible to establish with certainty whether the stemma
for Hkrl consists of two or more subdivisions.
2. The saga of Olaf the Saint appears in PCI not in its Hkr. form but in an
abbreviated version of the separate Olaf s saga (as in Jofraskinna). The Olaf s saga
translated in PCI can be shown to have belonged to the same class of manuscripts
as AM 68 fol. and the first part of AM 61 fol. (i.e. the B-class, se Den store saga
om Olav den hellige, Oslo 1930-41, p. 1107 ff.) but it was doser to the archetype
than either of these copies.
3. Peder Claussøn had before him a text of HkiTII which was to all intents
and purposes identical with the text used in H-Hr. In all the instances which
can be checked (i.e. where the translation does not obscure the wording of the
original), PCI fluctuates between y1 and x in exactly the same way as H-Hr.
(p. 57). Tn addition, PCI and H-Hr. share a series of readings which diverge from
both y1 and x (p. 58). In the light of tbis we may draw up the following complete
stemma for the y-class of HkrIII:
y
y1 y2
z1 z2 *H PCI
E *U J G H Hr.
The question then arises whether Hkrl, Oldfs saga (OH) and HkiTII were avail-
able to Peder Claussøn in a single manuscript or whether he had separate manu-
scripts of the various parts. Gustav Storm held that Peder Claussøn’s manuscript
of Hkrl (but not OH) was Norwegian, doubtless because of the Norwegian ortho-
graphic characteristics in the stanzas that are quoted in the original language.
There are, however, parallels to these Norwegianisms (dat.plur. ginandom, pron.
mer (for vér), r- for Icelandic hr- etc.) in the Norwegian-influenced Icelandic ortho-
graphy of the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and the stanzas also exhibit
such dofinitely Icelandic features as æ for Norwegian æ and hl- for Norwegian 1-.
The stanzas quoted in OH have a quite different appearance: their orthography
is markedly Icelandic and includes at least one form (the relative particle ed)
which can scarcely antedate the middle of the fifteenth century. But it is con
ceivable that Peder Claussøn emended the spelling of these stanzas in accordance
with a text known to have been sent to him by an Icelandic correspondent,
Magnus Olafsson of Laufés.
193