Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.10.1979, Blaðsíða 141
115
that the translator was not in error but that the divergencies occurred
in the process of scribal transmission (see notes to 4:42, 4:43, 7:13)18.
Comparison of a number of discrepancies between the Icelandic and
Norwegian texts with the French source demonstrates that in a number
of instances the Icelandic reading is more accurate and thus represents
better the original Norwegian translation (see notes to 1:7, 2:2, 5:6-7,
7:14, 8:14, 9:9-10, 12:6-7, 13:17, 16:5-6). The availability of the
Icelandic redaction for comparative purposes thus enables us to arrive
at a more accurate assessment of the nature of the original Norwegian
translation. In the process of transmission both content and structure
were affected.
Some discrepancies between the Norwegian and Icelandic redactions
are the result of what might be termed complementary corruption. In
one redaction the structure of the passage is affected, whereas in the
other content is modified. In the following example the Norwegian text
reflects the French content more accurately, but the Icelandic text
retains the structure of the French source. Italics indicate the words
primarily affected in deviations in content:
Guigemar, w. 822-24:
‘Bele\ fet il, ‘queile aventure
que jo vus ai ici trovee!
Ki vus a ici amenee?’
Guiamars Ijod, 36:35:
Min hin frida sag&e hann meS hueriom hætte
komt £>u hingat.
e&a hueriom atburd hævi ec Jæc hær fundit.
Gvimars saga, 16:18:
Mijn s(æta) seiger hann, meb hvorium hætte
hefe eg t*ig hier funded,
edur hvorsu komstu hingad.
Meissner drew attention to the above passage in the Ijod and
suggested that with the change of sequence the translator intended to
18 For further discussion of probable scribal errors in the Strengleikar, see: Alfred
Jakobsen, “En avskrivertabbe i Bisclaretz lio6”, Maal og Minne, Hefte 1-2 (1978), 26-
29; Povl Skårup, “Oversætter- og afskriverfejl i Strengleikar”, Maal og Minne, Hefte 1-
2 (1979), 30-33.