Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.06.2003, Page 85
THE S RECENSION
47*
As has emerged in the above survey, several discrepant features in
Hand B’s practice may be best attributed to the immediate influence
of S1. Thus, the only ex. of an unshifted medial vowel in a trisyllabic
form in Hand B, ‘lofaðv’ = S1 Tofadv’ 37/15; the only ex. of ‘gor-’
in a past part. form of gjöra, ‘gortt’ = S1 ‘gort’ 37/13; the only ex. of
<d> for ð, ‘Valgerdr’ = S' 39/2; the only ex. of an öng- form in neg.
adj. and pron., ‘avngvm’ = S1 ‘pngum’ 63/48 (cf. in Augustinus saga
‘0ngan’ 68rbl = ‘Ongan’ in AM 221 fol. 5va3; misread ‘Engan’
Hms. I, 150/36); the only ex. of ‘engiss’ = S1 ‘engis’ 63/41; the only
ex. of ‘mun(-)’ in the pres. sg. of munu, ‘mvntv’ = S1 ‘muNt þv’
63/34-35 (it is also the only such form noted in S1, though not re-
marked in EIM VII, 56); the only ex. of prep. ‘viðr’ = S1 ‘vidr’ 65/19;
two of the three exx. of ‘allvm’ and the single ex. of unmutated ‘haf-
um’ in Hand B correspond to the same forms in S1; two of the three
exx. of <r) for hr- in Hand B also correspond to the spellings of S1
(the third is in a passage not preserved in S1). There is finally the
unique ‘wslettv’ in Hand B, explicable only by reference to S1; see
VII 5 (ii) above.
XI. Supplementary considerations.
The evident influence of S' on S2 in the Jóns saga text, diminished to
some extent in the following Augustinus saga fragments, makes it nat-
ural to search for signs of similar influence elsewhere in the codex.
Any certainty is hard to achieve. The texts preceding Jóns saga in AM
234 fol. differ in origin and transmission and require more detailed in-
vestigation than has been possible here. Hand A is that of a profes-
sional scribe with his own standards; his occasional deviations, <ft) for
<pt), <y> in forms of mikill, barred <fi> for hans, rare accent markers
over diphthongs, a few norwegianisms, are small points which might
indicate 221 as the source but would need to be systematically collect-
ed to carry weight. Hand B begins by showing rather close attachment
to S1 but becomes more independent. Nevertheless, certain differences
between his practice in the Vitae patrum folios and characteristic fea-
tures of the Jóns saga and Augustinus saga texts (see pp. 25*, 29*,
44* above) may be counted sufficient to permit the conclusion that his
exemplar was not written by the scribe of AM 221 fol. If 221 original-
ly contained all the works, other than the Vitae patrum, found in 234,