Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series A - 01.10.2003, Blaðsíða 58

40*
E (AM 162 Efol.)
The situation in AM 162 A 8 fol. is also very close to this. In particular
there is no <u) graph. As well as ‘meN’, ‘maN’ occurs; final s is occasionally
written (s). But this manuscript differs from E and the Orkneyinga saga
leaf in its use, admittedly occasional, of the ok abbreviation.
The hand in the Stockholm fragments from Oláfs saga Tryggvasonar is
indeed very similar to the above three manuscripts. Perhaps the only
significant difference is the occasional use in Stockholm Perg. 4to no. 18 of
the <u> graph (e g f. 35r ‘goðum’, 36v ‘þurfo’, ‘spurði’, 41r ‘sogðu’), as
well as the ok abbreviation already encountered in AM 162 A 8 fol.
As far as Morkinskinna and the Maríu saga fragment are concemed, later
scholars have doubted the identification of the hands in those manuscripts
with that of E. It was only a few years after Finnur Jónsson’s and Kálund’s
claim that doubt was cast on it by Unger.15 After underlining the care which
he has exercised in comparing the manuscripts, he writes, of AM 655 xxxn
4to, Stockholm Perg. 4to no. 18 and GKS 1009 fol. (Morkinskinna), “Jeg
tör med Bestemthed paastaa, at disse tre Haandskrifter er med forskjellige
Hænder.”16 Unger then separates the main hand of 1009 and the hand of
655 on several grounds, including the latter’s frequent use of round <s).17 In
addition, Unger claims that Morkinskinna (no matter which hand) cannot
have been written by the same person as the scribe of the Stockholm Oláfs
saga Tryggvasonar, a separation based chiefly on the use in Morkinskinna
of ‘oc’ rather than the abbreviation for it and the striking similarity between
the graphs (t) and <z> in Perg. 4to no. 18 (a feature also of E). Unger then
separates the Egils saga fragment in AM 162 A 8 fol. from Morkinskinna
by reason of the rarity of <c) in 162 A 8, the use of the superlative in ‘-azt’
(whereas Morkinskinna has ‘-ast’), and the occurrence of <aa> = á, in 162
A 8 but not in Morkinskinna (this last observation is, however, erroneous).
He claims that a glance will disprove the identity of the scribe of the
Orkneyinga saga fragment and the first scribe of Morkinskinna, and
concludes “Efter min Formening har altsaa ingen af Morkinskinnas to
Skrivere havt nogen Befatning med noget af de ovenanförte Haandskrifter;
og jeg tror ogsaa bestemt at turde sige, at Maríu Sagas Afskriver ikke har
været den samme Mand, som har skrevet Fragm. af Egils S. og Orkneyinga
Saga. I denne Henseende kan der saaledes, dersom min Mening om
Forholdet mellem disse Haandskrifter er rigtig, ikke være noget i Veien for
at give Morkinskinna en höiere Alder end c:a 1300.”18 (Unger’s attribution
of Morkinskinna to an earlier date than Kálund proposed is supported by
15 Unger 1894, pp. 188-91.
16 Unger 1894, p. 189.
17 Unger 1894, p. 190.