Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series B - 01.10.1960, Side 21

XIX
863 kiærleik + rned magsemd kiærleik
8618 huerium + sinum huerium
(iii) BC are not likely to be descendants of a lost
intermediate manuscript derived from A. Scribe 1 of
A was very careless, commonly omitting words and
letters and making errors in spelling and sentence
construction. These omissions and errors are not re-
peated in BC. Errors of spelling or grammar could,
of course, easily be corrected by an alert copyist,
but those involving understanding of the plot of the
tale might well be missed. Such errors of under-
standing of A — fra(le)landz 1812 (griklandz B,
gricklandz C), philippvm 1614 (+ B, vi(l)hialmi C) —
are not repeated in BC, nor is the misreading, at its
first introduction, of the exotic name nafaria as
vafaria 2214 (nauaria B, vngaria later nafaria C).
Further there is the evidence of the A passage peir
kongs sonn ok Lepvs d(vergr) ganga sinn vegg fram
komandi i eitt riodr 1313 ~14. Both B and C have
longer readings here. B reads:
peir kongs s(on) olc Lepus d(uergr) ganga skadlaust wt
af ollum fylkingum snyr pa munkrinn aptr. enn kongs
s(on) ok Lepus d(uergr) ganga sinn ueg. fram komandj
j eitt riodr....
C reads:
enn peir geingu skadlausir vt vm allar fylkingar. par
snyr mukrinn aptr. en kongs s(on) og Lepus duergr
snyr aptr sinn veg og koma framm j eitt riodr.
It is probable that B has the original reading here
and C a variant of it, and that the A scribe, deceived
by the repetition of the words kongs s(on) ok Lepus
d(uergr) ganga, omitted the central passage. The alter-
native, that a later scribe added the central passage
to an A reading which made sense without it, is
less likely. For similar mistakes by the A scribe see
below, pp. XXVIII—XXIX.
2*