Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1960, Page 271
255
rendered skogur in other passages (see GCvj: I 37r.21, GGiiij*:
I 84v.6 and GGiiij*: I 85r. 1), while skuggi renders Schatten, the
error must be ascribed to a scribe.
Similarly, in a few instances Mauer and Marmel have been mixed
up. There are several proofs to indicate that the translator has
grasped the meaning of these two words (see for instance G Giiij:
184r. 13-14). Therefore, when G Fiiij* die innern Mauren des Pallasts
is translated I 71v. 26-27 péåjnnri marmarana i hollinni, this error
must have crept in in the course of the transcription. JV 325r cor-
rects: på Jnnri Murana i Hollinne.
The following example is highly instructive:
der Thurn ist starck gnug/ vnd haben an jm eynen gutten schirm/ darzu ist
hieinn meines vatters schatz/ aller in bild vnd guldine zeynen geschlagen/
lassent sie vns holen/ G Fiiij*
[...............] tuminn er nogu sterkur, og hø
fum åi hønum goda giætni, bar til er hier
Sleiginn latumm oss hann taka, [...............] I 72r. 2—4
Here the text of I has been printed with the same division of
lines as in the original, and as is the case in the MS., it has been
indicated through a space of about one centimetre at the end of
line three that something is missing. This appears, then, to have
been realized by the scribe.
This observation is important. It shows that I is not a direct
transcription from the original text. There are examples enough to
indicate that the translator has understood the key-word of this
passage: Schatz is elsewhere rendered fjesjodur or gull (see for instance
G Giij: I 81r. 16 and G Fiiij*: I 72r. 19). And further, even if he had
not fully grasped the import of the passage, it is improbable that the
translator should have left an open space in his translation to return
to it later. As will be mentioned below, what he did instead was to
skip such passages or make a guess from the context. The only
possible explanation, then, is that there has been at least one link
intervening between I and the original translation, viz. the one
where this line was forgo tten.
This passage testifies favourably to the scribe’s reliability: After
all he did not interpolate here though there might be ampie reason
for doing so. But of course there do occur instances showing that he