Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Page 63

gian redaction - despite its antiquity - was a somewhat corrupt copy of an
older exemplar (p. XVIII); Kolbing provided copious evidence to sup-
port his hypothesis (pp. XVIII-XXIX).
Rudolf Meissner vigorously opposed Kolbing’s theory. To accept it
would have undermined Meissner’s own stylistic and comparative analy-
sis of the Strengleikar, that also are preserved in De la Gardie 4-7.5 With
Keyser and Unger, the nineteenth-century editors of the Strengleikar,
Meissner believed that the Norwegian manuscript faithfully transmitted
the substance of the translation.6 7 He undertook to study the Norwegian
lais on the assumption that “der text der Strengleikar, abgesehen von
leicht erkennbaren fluchtigkeiten, uns in der fassung vorliegt, wie sie der
iibersetzer gegeben hatte” (p. 138). To defend the canonicity of the text
that was to be the subject of his study, Meissner went to some lengths to
attempt to prove Kolbing wrong in regard to Elis saga (pp. 138-96). The
question he posed - “wie weit sind die islåndischen handschriften bei der
rekonstruktion des textes gegen die autoritåt der alten norwegischen
handschrift fur uns massgebend?” (p. 140) - is also crucial to our discus-
sion. Meissner’s analysis of the passages adduced by Kolbing, as well as
additional ones, led him to pronounce the De la Gardie codex “einen
nicht fehlerfreien, aber stilistisch zuverlåssigen text ..., der die sprachli-
che form der iibersetzung mit ausreichender treue wiedergiebt” (p. 189).
Meissner’s analysis of the Strengleikar and his categorical assertions re-
garding the translator’s attitude to the French source are predicated on
the firm conviction that the De la Gardie codex preserves the translator’s
version intact - insignificant scribal slips aside.
Recently (1979) an Icelandic redaction of the first of the Strengleikar,
that is Guiamars Ijod, came to light/ Meissner’s suspicion that the
Strengleikar did find their way to Iceland has thus been confirmed.8 For
comparative purposes Guiamars Ijod and Gvimars saga - as the Icelandic
redaction is entitled - are significant: for the group of works under discus-
5 Rudolf Meissner, Die Strengleikar. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der allnordischen Prosa-
litteratur (Halle: Niemeyer, 1902).
6 R. Keyser and C. R. Unger wrote in the introduction to their edition that the text of the
Strengleikar in De la Gardie 4-7 represents “den forste Reenskrift af Forfatterens Concept”
(Strengleikar eda Liodabok [Christiania, 1850], p. XIX).
7 For an edition of the saga, see Marianne E. Kalinke, ed., “Gvimars saga,” Bibliotheca
Arnamagnæana XXXIV, Opuscula, VII, (1979), 106-39.
8 Rudolf Meissner, “Die geschichte vom ritter Tiodel und seiner ungetreuen frau,” Zeit-
schrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litteratur, 47 (1904), 267.
49