Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series B - 01.10.1965, Side 25
XXIII
this particular passage. Here is not the best place to
discuss names or Gutenbrunner’s treatment of them (for
reference see section on names), so I shall reserve that
matter for separate consideration after B has been de-
scribed. In order to achieve some clarification of mindada/
muntadann, however, it is necessary here to consider in
part the list of wedding guests. In spite of the considerable
divergence in the forms of the names, A and B otherwise
show a rather large amount of agreement in the list.
For example, the numbers of accompanying knights agree
to a very large extent in A and B—only Jlax 500:400,
and B alone Osester 200. Chrétien, at one point in the
long list of guests, has a series (1970 ff.): Aguisiez of
Escoce with two sons, Bans of Gomeret with young
beardless companions with hawks, old Kerrins of Riel
with bearded men, and then the king of the dwarfs.
This series corresponds in ES roughly to: Aretus with
two sons, Ballduin, young Parsius of Rumil with beardless
companions, and then the dwarf king. Confusion results
from the reversal of order of young and old in the saga,
and also from the fact that the note about beards and age
is attached to Aretus in A but Ballduin in B. On this
point GC (p. 15, line 9 ff.) is absolutely misleading and
obviously mislead Gutenbrunner. There is some reason to
believe that B is more correct than A throughout this
passage. B’s síq tyu (25:28), if not exact, is at least closer
to the French set vinz (1988) than A ’s 60. B’s reference,
then, to hauk, val muntadann agrees in a general way
with the French (1982-84; note muiier), whereas A’s
hauttu... vel mindada finds nothing directly corresponding
to it here and most probably represents a misreading.
The original may have had a plural gráa... hauka...
mútaða, or the like.
A serious corruption is the passage fagnandi—Elinam
(68:1-4). B has a better text here, but the two versions
differ enough that it does not seem likely that A ’s original