Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Blaðsíða 205

sitting; they all wished him success, and immediately the two black-
men arrived ...)
The above account must be considered an Icelandic revision, since the
saga version represented by the older manuscript, Stockholm 6, agrees
with the French text at this point. Therefore, it seems plausible that the
preceding change in the Stockholm 46 version - that is, Iven’s promise to
the maidens to espouse their cause - also was the work of an Icelandic
copyist rather than of the Norwegian translator. In any case, the change
in Iven’s behavior from asking for leave to depart (in the French romance
and in the Stockholm 6 version) to arming himself immediately upon
rising presupposes a previous commitment to take on the opponents,
especially since the place of combat seems to be within view of the
captive maidens. In the Stockholm 46 version Iven is offered the
daughter only once - at the end of the episode. That makes good sense,
for Iven had agreed to fight on behalf of the maidens without interven-
tion from the lord of the castle. Consequently, when the lord of the castle
offers Iven his daughter after the successful outcome of battie, the ges-
ture appears as a standard topos, known, for example, from Erex saga
(see pp. 109-10). As in the vellum version, Iven refuses the offer of the
daughter as well as the subsequent offer of gold. Thus concludes the
episode.
We are fortunate to possess the Stockholm 46 version of I vens saga.
Palpable differences in content and structure between this version and
that represented by the vellums demonstrate that not all deviations in the
riddarasogur from the French sources were the work of the translators,
but that some were modifications contributed by Icelandic copyists. Al-
though some discrepancies in Stockholm 46 may be a consequence of
textual reduction, the nature of others betrays intentional revision. In the
case of Ivens saga, history has preserved for us not only a relatively
faithful Icelandic redaction of the Norwegian translation of Yvain but
also an Icelandic revision of parts of the tale. A number of motives can be
adduced for scribal revision, such as an awareness of some apparent
incongruities in the plot, or dissatisfaction with the development or spirit
of the narrative. In effect, an Icelandic copyist asserted his right to edit
and re-shape the text before him.
The existence of the Stockholm 46 version of Ivens saga enables us to
come to terms with Erex saga, to clarify the position it holds among the
other Arthurian riddarasogur, and to formulate a tenable hypothesis
regarding the character of the original translation of Erec et Enide. It is
191