Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Blaðsíða 312

282
ReLATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSCRIPTS
21, 22), 10 examples under IB (nos. 2, 3, 4 (later corrected), 15,16,17,
18, 20, 21, 22), five under IC (nos. 3, 6, 8,11,13), four under IIA (nos.
1,5,7, 9), eight under IIB (nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9,10,11) and five under 2C
(nos. 2,3, 5, 6,7). This suggests interdependence between the text that
filis the lacunae in these two transcripts. Many of the examples carry
some weight, e. g. IA 22, IB 3, 15,17, 20, 22, IC 6, 8, IIA 5, 7, IIC 5.
The question of dependence is, however, far from unproblematic.
One can hardly exclude that the agreement between the texts that fill
the lacunae in 521 and 38 could be due to the faet that both transcripts
were made by the same man. The nature of the examples, however,
is such that it suggests direct dependence. There are three conceivable
explanations:
1. The lacuna in 38 is filled in from 521.
2. The lacuna in 521 is filled in from 3#.
3. The lacunae in 3 8 and 521 are filled in from the same manuscript,
but not from Kringla itself and not from 36.
The material gives good grounds for exeluding the first explanation.
521 has a number of differences from K which we do not find in 38:
IA 2, 3, 5, 8, 9,10,18,19
IB 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,11,13,14,19, 23, 24, 25
IC 4, 5
IIA 2, 4, 6, 8, 9
IIB 7,12,13
IIC 1, 4, 8, 9,10
The large number of these examples gives a more than sufficient basis
for exeluding the possibility that 38 is a copy of 521.
There are also a number of instances where 38 deviates from 36,
where 36 has independent support (in 18) and where 521 has the same