Stories Set Forth With Fair Words: The Evolution of Medieval Romance in Iceland
240
Stories Set Forth With Fair Words: The Evolution of Medieval Romance in Iceland
240Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781786830678 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of Wales Press |
| Publication date: | 06/15/2017 |
| Pages: | 240 |
| Product dimensions: | 9.50(w) x 6.50(h) x 0.90(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Stories Set Forth with Fair Words
The Evolution of Medieval Romance in Iceland
By Marianne E. Kalinke
University of Wales Press
Copyright © 2017 Marianne E. KalinkeAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-78683-067-8
CHAPTER 1
Translation in Norway
Romance was introduced to the North with the rendering into Old Norse of Thomas de Bretagne's Tristan at the behest of King Hákon Hákonarson of Norway (r. 1217–63). Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar was followed by the translation of a collection of French lays, several romances and one epic poem. Except for the Strengleikar, the collective title given to the Old Norse version of the lays, and Elíss saga ok Rósamundar, a translation of Élie de Saint-Gilles, a chanson de geste, no French texts translated in Norway have been preserved in Norwegian manuscripts. Despite the certain evidence that Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar, Ívens saga (Chrétien de Troyes's Yvain) and Möttuls saga (Le Lai du cort mantel) were translated in Norway, these works have been transmitted solely in Icelandic manuscripts. These three narratives and other French romances believed to have been translated in Norway, such as Parcevals saga (Chrétien de Troyes's Perceval), as well as translations of uncertain provenance, such as Erex saga (Chrétien de Troyes's Erec et Enide) and Partalopa saga (Partonopeu de Blois), reveal a penchant of Icelanders for rewriting. They were self-assertive authors who revised, added, subtracted and restructured text. Despite the tremendous debt incurred to Norway for introducing continental literature to the North, the fact remains that most of the extant texts no longer substantially represent the Norse renderings. They are Icelandic redactions that manifest a diversity of approaches to transmitting this literature, including revision and recreation under the impact of indigenous traditions.
Some time during the reign of King Hákon Hákonarson, twenty-one Breton lays and the epic poem Élie de Saint-Gilles were translated into Old Norse. They are preserved in the Norwegian manuscript De la Gardie 4–7, dated around 1270. The Strengleikar collection and Elíss saga ok Rósamundar were copied only a couple of decades after their translation and are extraordinarily important, since they alone have been transmitted in a manuscript from their country of origin. Elíss saga is incomplete, for its French source was fragmentary, but only a couple of decades after it was written down in Norway, an Icelander copied it and supplied a continuation. Two of the translated lays have also been transmitted in Icelandic redactions and are significant for assessing the relationship of the Norwegian texts to the original translation. The other translations known to have been commissioned by King Hákon or thought to have been translated during his reign have been preserved solely in Icelandic manuscripts dating some 150–450 years after their rendition.
Except for Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar and Elíss saga ok Rósamundar, the translators are anonymous. Tristrams saga opens with the statement that King Hákon commissioned Bródir Robert, Brother Robert, in the year 1226 to translate the story of Tristram and Ísönd á norrænu (into Norse). Elíss saga concludes with the similar statement that King Hákon had Rodbert ábóti, Abbot Robert, translate 'pessi nœrrœnu bok ydr til skemtanar' ('this Norse book for your enjoyment'). Scholars believe that Brother Robert and Abbot Robert are identical, the latter being older and having moved up in the monastic hierarchy. Just before this self-identification, Abbot Robert indicates that the story he has translated is incomplete. He writes: 'En huessu sem Elis ratt pæim vandrædum oc huessu hann kom hæim til Frannz med Rosamundam, pa er æigi a bok pessi skrifat' (p. 116) ('But how Elis got out of these dificulties and how he came back home to France with Rosamunda is not written in this book'). The statement suggests that the manuscript from which Robert was translating did not have the complete text; it was defective, ending as it did in mid-story. An Icelander was to pick up later where Robert's French manuscript left off and to produce a continuation.
Scholars generally take at face value the prologue of Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar that gives the date of translation, the name of the translator and that of his patron. Tristrams saga introduced a genre, courtly romance, and an alliterative prose style in Norway, both of which were to have a profound effect on the composition of romance in Iceland. The complete saga has been transmitted solely in seventeenth-century Icelandic manuscripts, however, and these diverge considerably from the thirteenth-century Norse rendering. Only the Strengleikar collection and Elíss saga ok Rósamundar are extant in a Norwegian manuscript produced within a couple of decades after their translation. They are the earliest witnesses to the transformation of verse into prose, the effect of the courtly Norse style on content, and the impact of scribal interference already in Norway on the texts that were subsequently imported to Iceland. The Breton lays were composed in octosyllabic rhymed couplets, while the chanson de geste from which Elíss saga derives features alexandrines in assonanced stanzas called laisses. Yet the two types of versification resulted in the same alliteratively ornamented prose in translation that is also found in the other translations known to have been undertaken during King Hákon's reign.
Eleven of the Strengleikar narratives are attributed to Marie de France, and the entire collection is found only in the manuscript British Library, Harley 978. The manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, nouv. acq. fr. 1104 contains nine of her lays. The French lays in the Harley manuscript and their Norse versions in the De la Gardie manuscript preserve the largest number of Marie's lays. The sources of six other Strengleikar are found in other collections, and the French sources of another four Strengleikar are no longer extant. In the earliest, nineteenth-century edition of the Strengleikar the editors voiced the belief that the De la Gardie manuscript contained 'the first fair copy of the translator's rough draft'. This position is no longer tenable.
The most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the Strengleikar collection and their sources, including all the extant French manuscripts, was undertaken by Ingvil Brügger Budal in her doctoral thesis of 2009. She notes that between the original translation, presumably in the period 1226–50, and its transmission in the manuscript De la Gardie 4–7, at least four redactors were at work, two of whom were scribes who may have produced the first copy of the translation. This manuscript, no longer extant, may have been the source of the copy in De la Gardie 4–7. Budal argues cogently that the translation was made not in Norway but rather in Anglo-Norman England. There is no evidence that Old French manuscripts were found in Norway at the time, but the translator would have had access to at least two manuscripts of French lays in England, where a number of Norwegians, both religious and lay, are known to have been in the period 1220–60. Budal demonstrates that deviations in the Norse translations vis-à-vis the French sources occurred at various stages of the text, commencing with variants in the extant French manuscripts themselves; conscious or accidental changes made by the translator, who, Budal argues, is the same for the entire collection; and modifications introduced by copyists of the Norse translation.
The collection of lays in the Harley manuscript opens with a prologue of fifty-six verses in which Marie states that lays were composed by their authors to perpetuate the memory of adventures; some of these stories she herself has heard, and she has decided to put them into verse. The Norse translation contains a prologue, Forrœda, in which Marie's preface is preceded by that of the translator who declares that the esteemed King Hákon had the lays translated from the French language into Norse for what may be called lioda bok (a book of lays), since Breton poets composed lays, liodsonga, from the stories known to them. The translator goes on to say that these lays 'are performed on harps, rebecs, hurdy-gurdies, lyres, dulcimers, psalteries, rotes, and other stringed instruments – i ... odrum strænglæikum – of all kinds'.
In translation, the lays attributed to Marie de France have incurred reduction of text extending from 5 per cent to 49.5 per cent. Bisclaretz ljód, which renders Marie's Bisclavret, has suffered the least condensation; it lost sixteen of its 318 verses. This is followed by Desiré, a translation of an anonymous lay with the same name. At 764 verses, this lay is more than twice the length of Bisclavret, and forty-six of its verses are not found in the Norse translation. Marie's Bisclavret, like the sources of the other lays in the Strengleikar collection, is in verse. While the Norse renderings are in prose, this is a rhythmical language characterised by adjectival, nominal and verbal collocations, which occasionally are synonymous and not infrequently alliterate. For example, when Bisclavret's wife asks him about his frequent absences, she says: 'Sire, jeo sui en tel esfrei' (v. 43) ('Lord, I am so fraught with anxiety'). In Bisclaretz ljód this is transmitted as: 'Ec em pa iafnan rygg ok rædd ok i miklum angre' ('I am always sad and scared and in great sorrow') (pp. 86–7). The single word esfrei is rendered with a triple collocation, of which two words alliterate (indicated in bold italics). Similarly, the wife's exhortation to her lover to rejoice: 'Amis, fete le, seiez liez' (v. 111) ('"Friend," she said, "rejoice"') is rendered, without alliteration, with a synonymous adjectival triplet: 'Unasti vær nu fæginn. blidr ok gladr' ('Sweetheart, be joyous, happy, and glad') (pp. 90–1). She goes on to offer him her love and body and in response he thanks her warmly and accepts her pledge: 'Cil l'en mercie bonement / e la fiancé de li prent / e el le met par serement' (vv. 117–19) ('He thanked her warmly and accepted her pledge, whereupon she received his oath') (p. 69). Here too the translator renders one word, fiancé, with an alliterating couplet and additionally elaborates similarly upon the meaning of the oath: 'hann pakkade hænni morgum pokkum ok vidr tok tru hænnar ok trygdar fæstum. ok pui nest tok hann æid af hænni. at hann skylldi uruggr um væra ok bua uræddr' (p. 90) ('he thanked her with many thanks and accepted her promise and pledges of loyalty. Then he took an oath from her, that he might be confident of her and live unafraid') (p. 91). Throughout not only Bisclaretz ljód but also the other Strengleikar, the translator employs synonymous doublets and triplets, often alliterating, for dramatic emphasis and to convey emotion. The stylistic elaboration of the French text suggests a striving for euphony by the Norse translator.
Despite the loss of sixteen verses from Bisclavret, the Norse translation adheres relatively closely to its source. There is, however, one remarkable deviation from the French lay that at first blush suggests either a conscious change or suppression of text. When Bisclavret, in the company of the king, sees his faithless wife for the first time, he takes singular revenge; he tears the nose off her face: 'Le neis li esracha del vis' (v. 235). The Norse translation diverges: 'hann uppræistizc ok ræif af hænni klædi sin' ('he reared up and tore off her clothes') (pp. 94–5). In his classic study of the Strengleikar, Rudolf Meissner suggested over a century ago that the Norse translator had recoiled at such harsh vengeance, and has only her clothes ripped off. His interpretation of this difference rests on the firm conviction that the extant Norwegian manuscript faithfully transmits the work of a translator who intentionally recreated the French texts (p. 293). I suggest here, and have done so elsewhere, that deletion of the lost nose in favour of lost clothes was not the work of the translator but rather of a later scribe.
An Icelandic redaction of Bisclaretz ljód with the deviating title Tiódels saga here reads: 'reyf af henne oll hennar klæde og par med nefid og vyda holldid kramid' (11. 240–1) ('He tore all her clothes off her along with the nose and scratched off much of her skin'). The Icelandic saga affirms that the translator had indeed accurately rendered the nasectomy in v. 235 of Bisclavret. The omission of the nose in the Norwegian manuscript may be ascribed to the translator's propensity to render a single French word or phrase in alliterative, synonymous or other collocations, and it may be that Tiódels saga transmits the doublet klædi and nef found in the original translation. By the time a copy of the text found its way into the manuscript De la Gardie 4–7, the nose had been expunged, whether consciously or not, by a Norwegian scribe. The conclusion of Bisclaretz ljód supports the thesis that the reading in Tiódels saga transmits that of the original translation, for the ljód ends with the statement that all the wife's female offspring were 'afnæfiadar ok neflausur' ('without noses and noseless') (pp. 98–9), which echoes the French 'senz nes sunt neies / E sovent irent esnasees' (vv. 313–14) ('were born without noses and lived noseless') (p. 72).
Budal's study of the Strengleikar is the first to consider all the extant French manuscripts of the lays; she is able to show that what might seem to be a deviation from the French actually represents translation of a variant in one or the other French manuscript. In other words, when manuscripts unknown to or disregarded by earlier scholars are taken into account, what might appear to be divergences in the Norse translations are actually renderings of variants in the French manuscripts. A striking example, albeit one not noted by Budal, occurs in the translation of Chèvrefeuille, at 118 verses the shortest of the lays. The tale relates that Tristram learns that the queen will be travelling to Tintagel for the Pentecost feast, and along the road that she is to travel Tristan cuts off a hazel bough on which he carves his name and a message of sixteen verses. This message has been a subject of controversy, scholars disagreeing whether Tristan carved the substance of the verses on the stick, or the verses refer to a previous message, or that he etched only his name on the stick, but that this evoked the reminiscences alluded to in the sixteen verses. The dispute concerning the meaning of vv. 63–78 devolves from the reading of vv. 61–2 in the Harley 978 manuscript, which reads: 'Ceo fu la summe de l'escrit / Qu'il li aveit mandé e dit' ('that is the gist of the message that he had sent her'). The rendering in Geitarlauf – 'Nu var ristid a stavenom' ('now there was carved on the stick') – suggests that the translator interpreted the ambiguous verses to mean that the entire text was inscribed on the hazelwood stick. It turns out that this interpretation is not original with the Norse translator; it had already existed in at least one manuscript, Bibl. Nat. nouv. acq. fr. 1104, which writes: 'ce fu la some de lescrit / qui fu el baston que je dit' ('This is the gist of the message on the stick that I described'). In other words, Geitarlauf here transmits a French variant, a variant unknown to or largely ignored by the scholars who quibbled over the content of Tristan's message.
Contrary to Meissner, who thought that deviations from the then known French sources were to be ascribed to the Norse translator, I believe that on the whole the various Strengleikar were fairly accurate translations of content, despite the stylistic differences and elaborations. The aforementioned Tiódels saga is an Icelandic redaction that considerably deviates from its source Bisclaretz ljód and may rightly be considered a recreation (see chapter 5). Nonetheless, it transmits readings reflecting the French source, therefore providing evidence on the one hand of their existence in the translation, but on the other of corruption in the Norwegian manuscript De la Gardie 4–7. While Tiódels saga is an Icelandic adaptation or reworking of Bisclaretz ljód, another lay, Guiamars ljód has been transmitted in an Icelandic copy from the year 1737 that evinces not only minimal textual intervention by its copyist but also the preservation of original readings that were lost in the thirteenth-century Norwegian manuscript. A comparison of the Norwegian Guiamars ljód and the Icelandic Gvímars saga with the source, Guigemar, establishes that the Norwegian redaction, despite its antiquity, is defective by reason of textual attrition and scribal misreadings. The Icelandic redaction, at a remove of some five centuries from the translation, contains instances of agreement with the French source, where the Norwegian redaction had already incurred loss of text or acquired corrupt readings in the process of scribal transmission.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Stories Set Forth with Fair Words by Marianne E. Kalinke. Copyright © 2017 Marianne E. Kalinke. Excerpted by permission of University of Wales Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface vii
Translation in Norway 1
Tinkering with the Translations 19
Chansons de geste in Iceland 43
Stories Set Forth with Fair Words 63
Icelandic Innovations 92
The Beginnings of Icelandic Romance 114
Icelandic Romance as Critique and Sequel 142
Epilogue 162
Notes 166
Bibliography 180
Index 187