Gripla - 2023, Blaðsíða 214

212 GRIPLA
AM 655 xxx 4to as an artefact
While there is no documented information regarding the provenance of
AM 655 4to, the fragment itself may provide insights into the context in
which it was created. The manuscript, as a physical object, inherently “rep-
resents a culture,” as Stephen Nichols points out; its features convey how
it was used and for what purpose.18 The specific dynamics of the Icelandic
society, economy, and culture during the thirteenth century affected the
production of AM 655 xxx 4to. As a result, the fragment can be meaning-
fully interpreted through examining its distinct features and aligning them
with the characteristics and culture of its period. The author of this essay
examined the fragment at the Arnamagnæan Institute, Copenhagen, where
it is preserved. It is catalogued with thirty other parchment fragments of
different origins and content under the same shelf mark, differentiated by
the numbers i–xxxiii.19
The fragment consists of four conjoint vellum leaves (two bifolia). The
text is continuous and uninterrupted through all eight pages but ends in
medias res. It can, therefore, be assumed that the leaves formed an inner
part of a quire. The vellum is worn and brown in colour with scattered
signs of rot or mould. All four leaves show marks of regular horizontal and
lateral folds, indicating that the fragment had once been used in some type
of packing or binding or stored in a folded state.
Even though the shelf mark indicates quarto size, the dimensions of the
fragment correspond to the smaller octavo size, measuring 157 x 123 mm.
The text is written neatly in a single column, and each page has exactly
seventeen lines. The margins are 10–15 mm at the left, right and top of
each page, and on average 30 mm at the bottom. There are signs of prick-
ing at the outer margins but no signs of ruling. The leaves have not been
trimmed.
The text is written in one hand, in proto-Gothic script. The ink is dark
brown in colour, sometimes black, and appears dense and clear on the
pages. There are no rubrics or illuminations in the manuscript, but eight
18 Stephen G. Nichols, “Why Material Philology? Some Thoughts,” Zeitschrift für deutsche
Philologie 116 (1997). Quote at 14.
19 Discrepancy in the numbers (thirty fragments, numbered i–xxxiii) is caused by two of
the fragments having two numbers. Brief descriptions of all the fragments can be found in
Kålund, Katalog II, 58–67.