Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Side 101
The difference between the text of the vellum and that of the paper
manuscripts is most pronounced in the prologue - that does not derive
from Le mantel mautaillié - of which a major portion is devoted to a
portrait of King Arthur, the most extended in the riddarasogur. In the
following passage, cited from the seventeenth-century redaction AM 179,
italicized words are not found in the vellum; significant divergent read-
ings in the vellum are placed in brackets:
Artus konungr var hinn frægasti hofdingi at hverskonar fræk-
leik [skorungleik] ok allskonar drengskap ok kurteisi med
fullkomnu huggcedi ok vinsælasta mildleik, svå at fullkomliga
vard eigi frægari ok vinsælli hofdingi um hans daga i heim-
inum. Var hann hinn vaskasti at våpnum, hinn mildasti at
gjofum, bh'dasti f ordum, hagråd(a)sti [hyggnasti] i rådagerd-
um, hin godgjarnasti i miskunnsemd, hinn sidugasti i godum
medferdum, hinn tiguligasti i ollum konungligum stjornum,
gudhræddr i verkum, mjuklyndr godum, hardr illum, mis-
kunnsamr purftugum, beinisamr bjdddndum, svå fullkominn
i ollum hofdingskap [hofdingsamligum atburdum], at engi ill-
girnd né ofund var med honum, ok engi kunni at telja lofs-
fullri tungu virduligan [fanzt a] gofugleik ok sæmd rikis hans
(See pp. 29-30 for translation)
The text of the vellum is only about two-thirds the length of the text in
AM 179. Both manuscripts cite a catalogue of Arthur’s virtues which fall
under the general headings of prowess, munificence, gentleness of
speech, and prudence. The vellum does not contain matter that could be
considered tautological, however, especially the central section with its
elaboration of virtues subsumed under those listed in the immediately
preceding passage.
Faced with the above evidence from Mottuls saga the question must be
repeated: is the prologue in AM 179 a reasonable facsimile of the transla-
tor’s composition? If so, then the prologue of the vellum fragment pre-
sents a trenchant argument for extensive textual reduction within the first
century of transmission. The alternative - that the fragmentary AM 598
recension, the shorter version, represents the translator’s work - means
that much of the amplification in Mottuls saga must be considered the
work of a later scribe. The question cannot be answered on stylistic
grounds because either redaction contains a prologue that is self-suffi-
cient and not marred by any pronounced stylistic or structural infelicities.
7*
87