Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1979, Qupperneq 137
123
the existence of hånd C differ somewhat from those that call for the
postulation of hånd D. Although hånd D has contributed only two lines
to the preserved part of the MS., these differ so markedly from the
paleographic features of the rest of the fragment that they fairly demand
some explanation and an additional scribe is the most logical one. But
the peculiarities of 11. 19-23 of page lv, while distinctive and consistent,
are more of an orthographic nature. One might for this reason be
tempted to look for an explanation which would allow for the continued
writing of one scribe. Scribal inconsistency provides a contradictory and
inadequate answer. Variation in the original offers a more satisfactory
solution, although as has been observed it cannot have been a change
which began with the new saga. A completely accurate copy of this page,
would, for example, include a passage of high orthographic irregularity
corresponding to 11. 24-25. But it is unlikely that the limits of such a
passage would be coterminus with line ends. Unfortunately, it cannot
definitely be asserted that the variant section of the MS. which I have
ascribed to hånd C begins with the first word of 1. 19, although the
change of hånds at the beginning of 1. 24 is, I think, certain. The
possibility of a change in the original cannot, therefore, be dismissed.
Nevertheless, I believe that the alteration of the character of the script,
minor as it is, presents sufficient evidence to make a change of hånds the
probable explanation, a probability which the diversity of hånds already
established is as likely to raise as to diminish.
Provenance and Date of the MS.:
The MS. is generally considered to be of Icelandic origin. The
indication of the u-umlaut of a before a preserved u, the tendency to
retain h before /, the use of the superscript dash in A and of the small
Capital in A and B to indicate the geminate, and the inconsistency of
writing the dental spirant medially and finally all support this
conclusion.
Seip characteristically argues that the original must have been
Norwegian. However, his grounds for this assertion appear to be
mistaken. At one point in his Palceograji he comments:
.. .AM 655 X, 4°, isl. hs. fra 13. hå. etter eldre no. forelegg, har 3
ganger p for insulær v.b
6 Palaografi. B. Norge og Island: Nordisk Kultur XXVIII. B (Stockholm, Oslo,
Copenhagen, 1954) p. 19.