Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2007, Page 314
284
ReLATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSCRIPTS
23. J>a lét konongr (hann 38) føra fæti Røreks a aNa« pall (145.15)
24. oc for hann af (or 38) landi i brot (145.16—17)
25. eN hvert fiN er hann måtti (måtti jia 38) com hann til Jnonorto vid RØrek.
konong (147.2—3)
26. hann vacti [aa f>orS folafoM rmerkis maN reckio felaga sinn (reckio fe-
laga sinn oc merkis man« 38) oc gengo \>eir ut (149.18—20)
27. \>eir Sig vatr mælfo s in i milli rat na>5fyn v<*ri til (at najdfyn v<zr\ til
(later marginal addition) 38) at konongr viffi Jiessi tijiendi fem braSazt
(150.2-4)
28. at hann rver\>i fijpan eigi (verjii eigi fipan 38) aaSfuNdiN (150.21—22)
There is a large number of examples where 38 has a different reading
while 321 follows 36, and one undeniably comes close to also excluding
the second explanation, namely that3# served as exemplar for the text
filling the lacuna in 321. If we look more closely at the examples, how-
ever, they give a weak basis for such a conclusion, despite their large
number. Indeed, few have any particular power to convince. Roughly
half of them (nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 23) are almost without any
significance. Here Asgeir Jonsson has either corrected the text him-
self to agree with K, or there is variation in word forms that is best
considered as orthographic. Examples 4, 20, 22 are quite natural com-
monsense corrections that would have been self-evident. Examples 7,
9,14,19, 24 are also very unconvincing. They are mostly of a stylistic
nature, and many such changes are found throughout the transcript. It
would not be surprising if Asgeir Jonsson several times made changes
that brought the text into agreement with K, even if he were not using
it as exemplar. We are left with 10 examples, 6, 8,12,15,16, 21, 25, 26
and 28. These are also stylistic or lexical alterations, and none of them
are particularly significant when we consider that the scribe knew the
text very well.
If the similarities are due to the faet that 321 and 38 are sister manu-
scripts and the common errors are transferred from a common exem-
plar, then there must have been a transcript of Kringla other than 36.