Editiones Arnamagnæanæ. Series B - 01.10.1965, Síða 37

XXXV
1035-40—pucelel). The possibility that unnustu repre-
sents an original misunderstanding of the French dame
seems very slight; the word occurs frequently throughout
the saga and is otherwise never applied to the queen.
In a few instances there are corruptions in B where A
also shows difficulties. In jarl blindar..drasir (56:21-22)
there must be a corruption of the text. A possible emenda-
tion to astir is suggested on the basis of ast in A. However,
the A text itself is of somewhat dubious quality in other
respects, especially in the use of brukar, where B's blindar
is at least better. Another crux is piitis dqgum (24:30),
but A’s pinizdaugum is not much of an improvement.
Naturally, pikkisdagar suggests itself (so GC), but a mis-
reading of ikk as either in or ut does not seem very likely.
Another possibihty might be some form with pí(n)slar-,
or perhaps píningar-, but these do not seem to help much
either. muntadann (25:29) is less of a problem, since the
correct form would merely be mutadann (cf. GC). The
corresponding form in A, mindada, also shows a nasal,
so that one might suspect an original form with an accent
mark which happened to look like a nasal stroke in this
instance. See also the discussion in the description of A.
Names (A + B).
I have postponed a discussion of the name material
of both A and B until this point. This is not the place for
a detailed discussion of them or for a thorough comparison
with the French, but several general observations seem
warranted, particularly as they aid in the evaluation of
A and B.
Siegfried Gutenbrunner, in his article “Ober die Quel-
len der Erexsaga” (Archivf. d. Stud. d. neueren Sprachen,
CXC [1954], pp. 1-20), has investigated the name mate-
rial in part; cf. my article “Names in the Erex saga”
(,J.E.G.Ph., LXII [1963], pp. 143-54). One of Guten-