Francia et Germania – Translations and the Europeanisation of Old Norse Narratives (with Karl G. Johansson)

Francia et Germania – Translations and theEuropeanisation of Old Norse Narratives

Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson

Translations have in all times provided new impulses in literatecultures. Old Norse literate culture was no exception. The earliest

translations, which must have been essential for the first steps towardsa vernacular literature, were of Latin texts, but in the second quarter ofthe 13th century there appear translations from other vernaculars,primarily French, but also from German. In this article we willintroduce one of the central translations from French, the Strengleikarand the only extant evidence of German translations into Old Norse,Þiðreks saga af Bern. These works represent a new phenomenon in OldNorse literate culture and provide influences from two vernacularliteratures with different character, and therefore may have had slightlyvarying impact on the target culture. We have little knowledge of theactual context for the translations and the actors taking part in the work.For the translations from French the scarce information tells us that acertain brother or abbot Robert was the translator of some of the works,starting with Tristrams saga in 1225, at the request of the king, HákonHákonarson. There are all in all five texts that seem to have beentranslated under the commission of king Hákon. They all provide someinformation about their making:

Tristrams saga:Hér skrifaz sagan af Tristram ok Ísönd dróttningu, í hverri talat verðrum óbæriliga ást, er þau höfðu sín á milli. Var þá liðit frá hingatburðiChristi MCCXXVI ár, er þessi saga var á norrænu skrifuð eptirbefalingu ok skipan virðuligs herra Hákonar kóngs. En bróðir Robertefnaði ok upp skrifaði eptir sinni kunnáttu með þessum orðtökum,sem eptir fylgir í sögunni ok nu skal frá segia.

9

Francia ombrukket14_Layout 1 07.01.13 15:48 Side 9

Written down here is the story of Tristram and queen Ísönd and ofthe heartrending love that they shared. This saga was translated intothe Norse tongue at the behest and decree of king Hákon when 1226years had passed since the birth of Christ. Brother Robert ablyprepared the text and wrote it down in the words appearing in thissaga. And now it shall be told. (Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar: 28–29;from AM 543 4°, late 17th century)

Ívens saga:Ok lykr her sógu herra Ivent. Er Hakon kongr gamlí lett snua orfranzeisu J norenu. (Ívens saga: 147; from Holm Perg 6 4°, c. 1400)

And the saga of Sir Íven ends here, which King Hákon the Old hadordered translated from French into Norse. (Ívens saga 1999: 99)

Möttuls saga:Nv seigir þesse bók fra einum kynligum og gamansamligum atburder giordist innann hirdar hinns dyrliga og hinns fræga Artus kongs.er hafde alt Eingland og Bretland frialst vndir sig. Enn þuilijksannindi sem valskann sýndi mier þa norræna⟨da⟩ eg ýduraaheÿróndum til gamans og skiemtanar suo sem virdugligur Hakonkongur son Hakonar kongs baud fakunnugleik mínum ad gioranockut gamann af þessv epterfylgianda efnne. (Mǫttuls saga: 5–7;from AM 179 fol, a 17th century transcript of Holm Perg 6 4°, c. 1400)

This book tells about a curious and amusing incident that took placeat the court of the illustrious and renowned king Arthur, who heldall England and Brittany under his sway. And this true account,which came to me in French, I have translated into Norwegian asentertainment and diversion for you, the listeners, since the worthyking Hákon, asked me, ignorant though I be, to provide someentertainment through the following story. (Möttuls saga 1999: 5–8)

Elíss saga:en Roðbert aboti sneri, oc Hakon konungr son Hakons konungs lét

10

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson


snua þessi nœrrœnu bok yðr til skemtanar. (Elis saga ok Rósamundu:116; from DG 4–7 fol)

Abbot Robert translated and king Hákon Hákonarson ordered thetranslation of this Old Norse book for your entertainment. (Ourtranslation)

Strengleikar:En bok þessor er hinn virðulege hacon konungr let norrna orvolsko male ma hæita lioða bok.

This book, which the esteemed King Hákon had translated intoNorse from the French language, may be called “Book of Lais”.(Strengleikar 1979: 4–5; from DG 4–7 fol)

In addition to naming the commissioner and a translator in two of thecases, these excerpts suggest that the translation was a written process,based on and resulting in books. Note however that the oldestmanuscripts containing three of the texts are from the 15th and the 17th

century, which opens up for a discussion of the historical truth and thecultural implications of the information given in the pro logues/epilogues(see e.g. Sverrir Tómasson 1988; Ralph O’Connor 2009). That the 13th

century was a period characterised by many literary translations fromFrench is nonetheless undisputable. Other texts, such as Florés saga okBlankiflúr, Parcevals saga (and Valvers þáttr), Erex saga, Partalópa saga andFlóvents saga Frakkakonungs may have been translated in the same culturalcontext, but we have no direct information of date and place oftranslation nor commissioner.

In the prologue to Þiðreks saga there is information about the sources,but the prologue text is in many ways obscure, and there has been muchscholarly debate about how it should be understood. In the prologue itis stated:

Þesse sagha er ein af þeim stærstum søghum er gerfuar hafa verit jþyverskri tunnghu er sagt er frꜳ Þidreki kongi og hans køppum

11

francia et germania


Sigurdi Fabnis bana og Niflunghum Villtina monnum og morghumandrum kóngum og kappumm er koma vid þessa søghu. (Þiðreks saga1905–1911: 1)

This story is one of the largest that has been produced in Germanlanguage. It is told of Þiðrekr and his heroes, Sigurðr Fáfnisbani andNiflungar, of the men of Villcinus, and many other kings and heroesare mentioned in this story.

But there is also mention of parts brought together by Danes, Swedesand Norse people:

Daner og Sviar kunnu ath seigia hier af margar søgur enn sumthafa þeir fært i kuæde sin er þeir skemmta rikum monnum. morgeru þau kuæde kvedinn nu er fyrer longu voru ort epter þessaresøghu. Norræner menn hafa samann fært nockurn part søghunnar,enn sumt med kvedskap. þath er fyrst fra Sigurdi ath seigiaFabnisbana Volshunghum og Niflhungum og Welent smid og hansbrodur Egli. fra Nidungi kongi og þo ath nockut bregdist athkuædivmm manna heiti edur athburde þa er ei vndarligt suo margarsøghur sem þesser hafa sagt enn þo rijs hun nær af einu efni.(Þiðreks saga 1905–1911: 2)

Danes and Swedes can tell many stories about this, and some theyhave used in their poetry with which they entertain powerful people.Often those poems which are performed now have been composedbased on this story a long time ago. Norse people has gathered someparts of the story, and some in poetry, this is first about SigurðrFáfnisbani and Niflungar and Vǫlundr the smith and his brotherEgill, and about the king Niðungr. And even if the forms of namesor events change a bit, it is not strange when they have told so manystories, but still it is more or less the same.

12



The audience is mentioned when the German background is once againstated:

Þesse sagha er samansett epter søgn þydskra manna, enn sumt afþeirra kuædum er skemta skal rikumm monnum og fornort voroþegar epter tiþindum sem seiger j þessare søghu (Þiðreks saga 1905–1911: 2)

This story is composed from stories told by German people, andsome of it from those poems that entertain powerful people, and wasmade in the old days soon after the events told about in the story.

The prologue thus indicates that the compilation is formed from bothGerman written material and poems already extant in the Norse culture,in oral or written form.

The earliest translations into Old Norse from Latin have obviously beenof great importance for the emerging literate vernacular. When thetranslations from French and German appear they represent a new step inthis process. It is probably only when the Norse vernacular is well establi -shed as a written language that translations are made from languages thatdo not have the auctoritas of Latin. On the role of translations in general,but primarily about the courtly literature, Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen writes:

The development of courtly literature usually proceeded fromtranslation to imitations, and hence, if talented poets were at hand, tooriginal works. In Germany, the creative period in the field of courtliterature began in the twelfth century, England had to wait forChaucer, while Norway never really got beyond the stage of translationand imitation. Iceland never had an original court literature; the familysagas, although by no means uninfluenced by European developments,are an independent genre. (Halvorsen 1959: 7)

We believe, however, that the translations and imitations should be givengreater value than what is implied in Halvorsen’s words. They both playedan important role in the making of Norse culture, in Norway and Iceland.

13

francia et germania


Translations and literary systems

The main characteristic of both Strengleikar and Þiðreks saga is thus thatthey are primary translations, i.e. target-texts with known source-textsin Old French, and at least relatively certain use of German sources.This distinguishes them from secondary translations, i.e. texts that donot claim direct service and relation to a specific source-text, but thatbuild upon and utilize known literary motifs, techniques and writingstrategies in the creation of a text.1 These terms, primary and secondarytranslations, encompass and define a wide range of text-generatingactivities, such as inter-lingual, intra-lingual and inter-semantic re -writings. It has been shown that these activities have a commoncharacteristic since they are all, albeit to various degrees, interpretationsof old material in the creation of something new (see e.g. Copeland 1991and Eriksen 2010). If the corpus of translated riddarasögur is to bedefined based on such a broader conception of translation, it must alsoincorporate stories with no known source-texts, but sharing thematicand stylistic elements with the primary translations, such as Mírmannssaga, Rémundar saga keisarasonar, Konráðs saga keisarasonar and otherindigenous romances.2 That the translated and indigenous riddarasögurwere regarded as a more homogeneous literary whole in the medievalperiod can be demonstrated by the fact that they tend to appear in thesame manuscripts, such as Holm Perg 6 4°, Holm Perg 7 fol, AM 4894° and AM 586 4°.

Such a broad definition of translation has several implications forour discussion of Old Norse literary tradition. First, it emphasizes thefact that Old Norse literary production was influenced, directly or not,

1 The terms primary and secondary translation are introduced by Rita Copeland (seee.g. 1991: 6–7; 93–95).

2 It should be mentioned that the stylistic link between the translated and indigenousriddarasögur has not been left uncommented in research – see for example Kalinke(1985). It is, however, still common to distinguish between them – see for exampleRory Mc Turk’s A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture (2007).In addition, the link between these sagas has not been argued for based on the natureof the medieval text-generating activities of translatio, as it is done here.

14



by European Latin and vernacular models, which were adapted to theneeds and requirements of the target-culture. The Old Norse literarysystem, including translated literature, may thus be seen as a part ofthe medieval pan-European literary polysystem,3 which includes Latinand other vernacular literary systems. These had a dynamic andsymbiotic relationship to one another, which imposed constant literaryinfluence and adaptations. This terminology and conceptualising ofliterature is convenient and appropriate when working with medievalmaterial, because of its generally fragmentary character and the lackof known direct links between texts and manuscripts. Second, thecorpus of Old Norse translations from French and German would bechanged from incorporating only translations of known source-texts,to including also texts alluding to and building upon Old French andGerman literary material in general. Having said this, we wouldemphasize that the definition of a corpus is less significant, if at all,than the conception and way of approaching Old Norse translations.It is the dynamic and allusive nature of medieval translation, as a text-generating process, that is significant to highlight. And even thoughthe focus of this book is two specific translations from French andGerman, they reflect the translation of and allusion to both Latinlearned tradition and possibly other vernacular traditions, written andoral.

The link and interplay between these literary systems may beillustrated well by some explicit comments by Marie de France, one ofthe better known female poets from the second half of the 12th century,in the prologues of her works. The example is highly relevant here as ittouches upon the writer’s literary competence when composing her lais,some of which were translated into Old Norse and included in theStrengleikar collection. Marie de France is claimed to have written threetexts, namely Lais, Fables and Espurgatoire Seint Patriz, on basis of asignature in them. In the Fables (Epilogue, v. 4) it is said: Marie ai nun,si sui de France ‘my name is Marie and I come from France’; in Guimar,the first lai, it is said: Oëz, seignurs, ke dit Marie/Ki en sun tens pas ne s’oblie

3 The concept polysystem is introduced by Itamar Even-Zohar (see e.g. 1990; 2000).

15

francia et germania


‘Here, my lords, the words of Marie, who in her time does not neglecther obligations’ (Marie de France 1999: 43); and in Espurgatoire (1. 2297–2300) it is said: Jo, Marie, aim is en memoire/Le livre de l’Espurgatoire ‘I,Marie, have recorded for prosperity the book dealing with Purgatory’(Marie de France 1999: 17). As it is clear from the quotes, “Marie deFrance” never calls herself with that name. What is more significant here,however, is the nature of the texts she wrote. In the prologue of the Lais,it is said:

Pur ceo començai a penser/d’alkune bone estoire faire/e de Latin enRoamnz traitre/mais ne me fust guaires de pris/itant s’ensunt alterentremis./Des lais pensai qu’oïz aveie/[…]/Plusurs en ai oïz conter,/nesvueil laissier ne obliër./Rime en ai e fait ditié,/soventes feiz en ai veillié.(Prologue ll. 28–33, 39–42)

For this reason I began to think of working on some good storiesand translating a Latin text into French, but this would scarcely havebeen worthwhile, for others have undertaken a similar task. So Ithought of the lays which I have heard […] I myself have heard anumber of them and do not wish to overlook or neglect them. I haveput them into verse, made poems from them and worked on themlate into the night. (Marie de France 1999: 41)

In addition, in several of the lais it is mentioned that they are based onBreton material, for example Guimar, ll. 19–21, reads:

Je vaus raconteur, en peu de mots,/les contes don’t je said su’ils sontvrais,/les contes don’t les Bretons ont tiré leurs lais

I shall relate briefly to you stories that I know to be true and fromwhich the Bretons have composed their lays. (Marie de France 1999:43)

By writing the Espurgatoire, Marie de France does what she mentions tohave considered, namely translating from Latin. The Fables, on the other

16



hand, are translated from English. Whoever Marie de France was, shewas a well-educated writer, who had the language skills, and the literaryand cultural competence to alternate and navigate between Latin, OldFrench and English literary and oral traditions. Even though she is oneof the best-known medieval writers, Marie de France’s competence inthese languages and literary traditions was not exceptional. It was rathercharacteristic of the cultural elite both on the Continent and in England.This is supported by the existence of numerous manuscripts whichinclude texts in the three languages. One example of an Englishmanuscript is Harley 978. It includes both the Lais and the Fables byMarie de Frances, which are in Old French, together with texts in Latinand English (see Taylor 2002).

Another example of the symbiotic function of Latin and vernacularsin one and the same manuscript is the Eadwine Psalter, from c. 1159,which contains seven texts on one and the same page – three Latinversions of the psalms, an English version, a French version, a Latininterlinear commentary and a fuller Latin commentary in the margins.These are graded by means of size (there are 11 different sizes), style,positioning of the letters and coloring. Michael Clanchy (1993: 287)states:

Bringing various texts together all on one page was wise practice inmanuscript culture, when books were hard to come by; it accordedlikewise with the doctrine that scripture was to be read at differentlevels of meanings.

Even though the function of the various language versions may bediscussed, as well as the way such manuscripts were read and by whom,all these examples serve to illustrate that Latin and vernacular literarytraditions, written and oral, were equally significant parts of the com -petence and horizon of understanding of many medieval writers andscribes. The Latin and vernacular languages and literary traditionsconstituted a dynamic literary polysystem. Primary and secondarytranslations were central actors in the polysystem as a whole, as well as inthe separate literary sub-systems. The discussion of the two translations

17

francia et germania


Strengleikar and Þiðreks saga in this book will be framed by this under -standing of the Old Norse literary system as a whole, as dynamic andconstantly changing, and of translations as playing a central role withinthis system. This role was not constant – the status and function of OldNorse translations changed from the 12th to the 15th century. However, thestability lay in the perpetuity of the symbiosis between translations andindigenous literary traditions, as well as between Old Norse, Latin andother vernacular literary traditions.

This theoretical conceptualising of medieval literary traditions andtranslations may be exemplified by a couple of examples from the OldNorse world as well. The first example illustrates that sometimes OldFrench language sources may have been used for the translations intoOld Norse, even though the material translated belongs to classical orLatin learned tradition. This has been argued with regard to Tróju -manna saga, which is traditionally viewed as a translation from Latin,based on Dares Phrygius’ De excidio belli Troiani, dating to the timebetween the fourth and the sixth century (see e.g. Würth 2007: 165).The translation is assumed to have been done in the beginning of the13th century and conveys historical information about the Trojan wars.The translator seems to have been well read and knowledgeable in theliterary material, but seems also to have adapted this material accordingto his intention and audience. He does this both by keeping some of thestylistic and rhetorical features of the original, which were parallel toIcelandic ideals, and by changing others in order to comply better withthat same target literary context (Würth 2007: 165). The saga exists intwo main versions – an older and shorter one, which exists only inyounger manuscripts from the 17th century onwards, and a younger andlonger version, where material from Ilias Latina and Aeneid seems alsoto be included.

The second example is based on the use of Arthurian material inLatin, French and Old Norse traditions. All Old Norse manuscriptscontaining the younger versions of Trójumanna saga include also Bretasögur, a translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regumBritanniae. The Latin source is majorly concerned with the story aboutKing Arthur, who is said to have had control over the Orkneys, Norway,

18



Gotland and Denmark. Even though the material about Arthur isconsiderably shortened in Breta sögur, it is still there to provide athematic link to Old Norse translations of Arthurian romances. Thesignificance of the Arthurian material in Breta sögur varied in thedifferent manuscripts where it appears, for example Hauksbók andOrmsbók (now lost). In Hauksbók, Breta sögur and Trójumanna sagaappear together with Icelandic historical texts, works on cosmology,theology and philosophy, Icelandic family sagas and kings’ sagas, andthus come across more as historical texts. In Ormsbók, on the otherhand, Arthurian material was found not only in Breta sögur, but also inErex saga, Ívens saga and Parcevals saga. No matter what purpose thetwo manuscripts were to serve, they illustrate how the Arthurian storieswere commonly used, albeit in different ways, in Latin, Old French andOld Norse sources.

The translation of Strengleikar

With this understanding of Old Norse literature as closely related toLatin and other vernacular literary traditions, the focus now goes backto Strengleikar.

Strengleikar is a collection of short stories, which is based mainly onthe lais of Marie de France, but also includes translations of severalanonymous Old French lais, as well as stories which are presumablytranslations from Old French texts which are lost. The short stories arecalled ljóð in Old Norse, lai in Old French, which may have been derivedfrom the Celtic laid. These were possibly meant to be accompanied bymusical instruments, and may thematically be related to Celtic folktradition (Tveitane 1972: 28).

The identity of Marie de France is a problematic issue, but one ofthe best-known hypotheses is that she was a nun and was possiblyconnected to the court of Henry II of England (1113–1189).4 Many

4 For a detailed survey of all the various hypotheses about the identity of Marie deFrance and her authorship, see Burgess and Busby (1999).

19

francia et germania


known scholars and writers are associated with the court of Henry II,such as Wace and Thomas, who wrote the version of the Tristram story,which was translated into Old Norse.

As already mentioned the original translation of Strengleikar seemsto have been done on the commission of king Hákon, possibly aroundthe mid-13th century. The Strengleikar collection as such is preserved inone Norwegian manuscript only, DG 4–7 fol from c. 1270. This is arewriting of the original translation and includes the stories as listed inTable 1, some of which are fragmentary.

20


Francia et Germania – Translations and the Europeanisation of Old Norse Narratives Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson Title DG 4–7 fol Page in Strengleikar 1979 Forrœ!a "#va$–"#vb%% &–' Guimar "#vb%(–&"vb"& ""–(" Eskia &"vb"(–&)va%* (&–$% Equitan &)va%*–&#vb"( $)–+% Biscarlet &#vb"(–&+va' +)–'' Laustik &+va"*–&'ra&* "*"–"*) Desire &'ra&"–%&va(& "*$–"%% Tidorel %&vb"–%&vb(& "%)–"(" Chetovel %%ra"–%%rb%" "(&–"(# Doun %%rb%"–%(rb"' "(+–")# Tveggia elskanda liod %(rb&*–%)rb") ")'–"$# Gurun %)rb"$–%$va%' "$+–"+" Milun %$va(*–%+ra" "+%–"'% Geitarlauf %+ra&–%+rb%' "')–"'' Strandar strengleikr %+va"–%+vb%* &*"–&*) Leikara lio! %+vb%*–%+vb%' &*#–&"" Janual %'va"–(*vb&' &"&–&&# Jonet (*vb&'–(%rb"% &&'–&($ Naboreis (%rb"(–(%va&( &(#–&)" Ricar hinn gamli (%vb&)–(%vb%+ &)&–&)# Tab. 1. Strengleikar in DG 4–7 fol and in the edition by Cook and Tveitane (1979).

Table 1. Strengleikar in DG 4–7 fol and in the edition of Cook and Tveitane(1979).


The collection seems to have contained at least one more story, namelyGrelent, excerpts of which are today found in the fragment AM 666 b4°. This fragment was originally part of the DG 4–7 manuscript, but theparchment was detached and used in the lining of a bishop’s mitra inSkálholt in Iceland (Cook & Tveitane 1979: ix).

The main Old French source of Strengleikar is a collection of lais byMarie de France, found in the manuscript Harley 978, from about 1250.The manuscript contains in addition various types of texts in Latin, Englishand French (Taylor 2002). The Norse translations include eleven of thetwelve Harley lais, including the Prologue, where Marie is mentioned asthe author of the whole collection. Ten of the stories in Strengleikar are notfound in the Harley manuscript; and for four of them we have no knownOld French original (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xvii). These are thereforeextremely important from the point of view of reception and transmissionof French literature. Five of the stories which are not in the Harleymanuscript appear in a Paris manuscript, tra ditionally called S, from c.1300 (Nouvelles acquisitions françaises 1104). This manuscript containsonly lais, nine of which appear in the Harley manuscript as well. There arethus in total fourteen stories that appear in both S and DG 4–7. And finally,one of the stories in DG 4–7, Naboreis, is based on a lai appearing in athird manuscript, Bodmer 82 (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xviii).

The manuscript evidence suggests that the nature, provenance andorigin of the collections of short stories in the Harley manuscript andDG 4–7 may be discussed. For us, it is most significant to considerwhether Strengleikar was based on an existing Old French collection,which was merely translated, or whether the translator also wasresponsible for collecting the lais, which he then translated based onwritten exemplars or from oral retellings. On the one hand, the OldNorse prologue mentions a book that is translated by the king,suggesting that the translator had a written exemplar of the wholecollection. On the other hand, the collection as a whole is not preservedin any younger manuscripts, and some of the stories seem to have beenre-written and circulated on their own. Thus, Tiódels saga is an Icelandicrendering of the Norwegian Biscarletz lióð, while Gvimars saga is arewriting of Guimars lióð. The exact relationship between the latter two

21

francia et germania


texts is difficult to establish because the saga no longer exists, and is tobe found only in various indexes of Old Norse texts from various periods(Kalinke 1979: 108–109). Nonetheless, the existence of these two sagasmay suggest that individual stories were transmitted on their own. It istherefore not implausible to imagine individual transmission of shortstories prior to their collection by the Old Norse translator, or thepersons behind DG 4–7 (owner/patron/scribes etc.).5

Many of the stories may have been transmitted orally as well,individually or in smaller groups. Many of the Old French lais wereindeed originally based on Celtic oral tradition. Anne Holtsmark suggeststhat jongleurs were the main transmitters of Old French lais throughEurope. She argues that they introduced them to the Norwegian court,and through a collaboration with Norse story-tellers the stories weretranslated into Old Norse (Holtsmark 1959: 162–163). Cook and Tveitaneare critical when it comes to the role of jongleurs in the translation process,but they acknowledge that the stories may have been presented at theNorwegian court by jongleurs (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xxvi).

The traditional hypothesis concerning the translation of the shortstories in Strengleikar is that it was done in writing, but in smaller groups,possibly by different translators, presumably in the environment of theroyal court or at the Cistercian Lyse monastery near Bergen. Many suchstories were at some point gathered in a collection, which was thencopied in the manuscript DG 4–7 (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xxvii–xxviii).

German narratives, Nibelungs, Vǫlsungsand Þiðrekr af Bern

There is little evidence of translations from German into Old Norseduring the Middle Ages and our knowledge about the literary contactsbetween Norway and the German states in this period is limited. The

5 Cook and Tveitane state that “the text behind the existing copy […] can hardly havebeen in the form of one homogeneous exemplar. Although it might be conceivablethat such an exemplar existed at an earlier stage, it appears not very likely” (1979: xxvi).

22



central work of interest is the Þiðreks saga af Bern, a large, and oftenchallenging saga in its complexity. The saga was translated in the mid-13th century, or most likely in the second half of this century. It ispreserved in one Norwegian manuscript from c. 1300 and in a numberof paper manuscripts from the 17th century based on medieval Icelandicmanuscripts (see manuscript descriptions below).

Þiðreks saga poses a number of problems for modern scholarship. Thefirst is how to evaluate the work itself, as it consists of what must have beena number of independent narratives that have been compiled into the workwe find in the medieval manuscript. There have been two major hypothesespresented as to how the extant work was composed. Susanne Kramarz-Bein has characterised them as the Norwegian hypothesis and the Germanhypothesis respectively, as most scholars adhering to the first are Norwegians,while the second has primarily been advocated by German scholars (see e.g.Kramarz-Bein 2002: 3–4).6 The Norwegian hypothesis is more focused onan oral tradition for the material about Þiðrekr, which was allegedlyintroduced by German merchants in Bergen and subsequently connectedto the narratives about the Vǫlsungs before it was collected and composedin the form it is now extant; this tradition is also referred to as the collectorand compilation hypothesis. The German hypothesis on the other hand,suggests that German written material was translated, either from an alreadyextant compilation or from a number of written narratives in Middle LowGerman which are now lost. It could consequently be labelled as thetranslation hypothesis. The Old Norse manuscript tradition for Þiðreks sagais, however, in itself not clear, as the Norwegian, medieval manuscriptrepresents one redaction (or possibly two) and the two Icelandicmanuscripts from the 17th century have preserved a different redaction (AB).The Norwegian manuscript (Mb) is, as will be discussed further below,written by five scribes (Mb1–5). Of these two the scribes Mb2 and Mb3 areof main interest as they are considered to have formed two redactions withinthe manuscript, what is usually referred to as redactions Mb2 and Mb3. Therelation between the three redactions, Mb2, Mb3 and AB has been illustratedwell by Kramarz-Bein (2002: 22–24).

6 See also Susanne Kramarz-Bein’s article in this book.

23

francia et germania


Theodore M. Andersson’s remarks concerning the two versions of“Vilkinasaga” found in Mb2 and Mb3 are of interest for the presentationof the debate concerning the compilation and composition of the extantÞiðreks saga. He concludes:

Even more anomalous is the different placement of “Vilkinasaga” byMb2 and Mb3. Critics agree that the placement by Mb3 betweenÞiðrekr’s marriage and Valtari’s marriage is awkward because itinvolves introducing Velent’s ancestry (Vilkinus and Vaði) afterVelent’s story has already been told. But “Vilkinasaga” is chieflyconcerned with the wooing stories of Ósantrix and Attila. From thelarger structural perspective it is therefore appropriately located inthe marriage section. The Norse scribes understood the plan of thebook, but were faced with a dilemma; “Vilkinasaga” belongs both inthe section on Velent’s lineage, and in the marriage section. Themanuscript transmission shows that they failed to resolve theirdilemma. (Andersson 1986: 371)

This long passage is interesting as it casts a light not only on the dilemmaof the scribes, but also on the dilemma of the modern scholar.Andersson’s example is rather typical of the transmission of text-worksin a manuscript culture, where the individual manuscript and its textwitness reflects the work of, not a single author, but of a continuous lineof scribes and compilators. The placement of “Vilkinasaga” in itself,therefore, places Þiðreks saga in the highly literate manuscript culture ofthe late 13th century.

Þiðreks saga has been of great interest to German scholarship as well,as it represents a material which is to a great extent lost in the Germansources. There are no known sources preserved in Germany for the saga,but it is still obvious that there have been sources providing material inMiddle Low German for the translator or compilator (see e.g. Kramarz-Bein 2002: 6–7). Today the German tradition of Dietrich is found intales from the 13th century, and the best known is probably theNibelungenlied from c. 1200. In German scholarship, therefore, the focushas often been on the content of the now lost sources.

24



The prologue of Þiðreks saga was mentioned above. Many of thearguments for a German oral tradition are based on the information givenin this introductory text. The prologue is today only preserved in papermanuscripts from the 17th century, but there is no reason to doubt thatthese copies are based on a medieval exemplar; it was already stated byBertelsen that the prologue had influenced Oddr Snorrason’s prologueof his saga of Óláfr Tryggvason (Bertelsen 1905–1911: lv), i.e. in thetranslation of this saga found in a manuscript from the early 14th century.The prologue’s mentioning of various kinds of sources makes it relevantto take a look at some examples of what most likely represents indige -nous tradition.

Some of the characters who appear in Þiðreks saga are mentioned inIcelandic sources which are traditionally regarded to be based on originalScandinavian oral traditions. The two central sources here are Vǫlsungasaga and the poetic Edda. In the following some examples from thesesources will be presented and related to the parallel narratives found inÞiðreks saga as they illustrate very well the interaction between oral andwritten Old Norse and German systems at the time.

Eddic poetry containing motifs and characters in Þiðreks saga are foundonly in one medieval manuscript, GKS 2365 4° (Codex Regius), dated toc. 1270. The compilation of poems is, however, considered to be older,probably from as early as 1240, while the individual poems seem to havebeen written down in the decades around 1200 (see e.g. Lindblad 1954).These poems treat the life of Sigurðr Fáfnisbani and the Völsungs. Inconnection with the first poem about Sigurðr, Reginsmál, an introduc-tion in prose tells the story of how Sigurðr was fostered by ReginnHreiðmarsson in the court of Hjálprekr. In this poem Sigurðr collects thehorse Grani from Hjálprekr’s herd of horses. Reginn tells him how he andhis brother Fáfnir together with their father obtained a hoard of gold fromÓðinn, Loki and Hœnir as a compensation for their brother Otr who hadbeen killed by Loki. The gold is accompanied with a curse from the dwarfAndvari that it will cause the death of two brothers and evil among noblemen. Reginn tells Sigurðr how Fáfnir killed their father to get hold of thegold and how he kept it all to himself. In a further prose section it is relatedhow Sigurðr received the sharp sword Gramr which Reginn had made for

25

francia et germania


him. Reginn incites Sigurðr to set out to kill Fáfnir, but Sigurðr first of allwishes to avenge his father by killing the sons of Hundingr.

The following poem, Fáfnismál, is introduced by a prose sectionreferring back to Reginsmál. Here Reginn continues to incite Sigurðr toattack Fáfnir, and it is related how Sigurðr digs a hole in the groundwhere he awaits Fáfnir and kills him. The first part of the poem propercontains a conversation between the dying Fáfnir and Sigurðr. WhenFáfnir is dead Reginn appears, and he asks Sigurðr to fry the heart of hisbrother while he himself lies down to rest. Sigurðr cuts out the heart andstarts to fry it, but when he burns himself on the heart and puts his fingerin his mouth, he can understand the words spoken by some birds in anearby tree, that encourage him to kill Reginn. Sigurðr follows theiradvice, slays Reginn in his sleep and eats the fried heart himself. He loadshis horse Grani with the hoard of gold and prepares to leave. The birdsalso tell Sigurðr about the woman he meets in the following poem,Sigrdrífumál, where he wakes Sigrdrífa from a sleep indulged by Óðinn,and where she introduces him to important knowledge. Sigrdrífumálprecedes a lacuna in the manuscript, and is today followed by Brot afSigurðarqviðo, which contains the tragic story of Sigurðr and GuðrúnGiúkadóttir, which eventually leads to the destruction of the Völsungs.

At the end of Brot af Sigurðarqviðo there is a prose section providingallegedly different traditions about the death of Sigurðr. Here we findwhat must be considered literary references to other narratives:

Hér er sagt í þessi qviðo frá dauða Sigurðar, oc vicr hér svá til, semþeir dræpi hann úti. Enn sumir segia svá, at þeir dræpi hann inni íreccio sinni sofanda. Enn þýðverscir menn segia svá, at þeir dræpihann úti í scógi. Oc svá segir í Guðrúnarqviðo inni forno, at Sigurðroc Giúca synir hefði til þings riðit, þá er hann var drepinn. Enn þatsegia allir einnig, at þeir svico hann í trygð oc vógo at hánom liggiandaoc óbúnom. (Edda: 201)

This poem relates the death of Sigurðr, and it is said that they [thesons of Giúki] killed him outside. But some say that they killed himin bed when asleep. But German people say that they killed him in a

26



forest. And it is said in Guðrúnarqviða in forna that Sigurðr and thesons of Giúki had gone to the þing when he was killed. But all saythe same thing, that they betrayed his confidence and slew him lyingdown and unprepared. (Our translation)

This echoes the wording of the prologue to Þiðreks saga discussed aboveabout a tradition carried by þýðverscir menn ‘German people’, and theevaluation that all are univocal, segia allir einnig. As the mention of Sigurðrbeing killed in bed while asleep refers to the story as it is found inVǫlsunga saga, it seems as if the compilator of Codex Regius has knownthree different narratives about this event, the one he has just chosen,one attributed to German traditions of the kind found in Þiðreks saga andfinally one tradition reminding of Vǫlsunga saga.

But there are other clear differences between the Norse traditionsand the Þiðreks saga, e.g. regarding the names of the main characters. InSigrdrífumál the name of the valkyrie is Sigrdrífa, but in Vǫlsunga sagashe is named Brynhildr Buðladóttir, which corresponds to Brynhildr inÞiðreks saga. Brynhildr in the eddic poems is also presented as thedaughter of Buðli, and in the continuation of the cycle of eddic poemstreating the rise and fall of Sigurðr and the Giúkungs we are introducedto Guðrún Giúkadóttir, who corresponds to Grímhildr from Þiðreks saga.In many cases there are also different kin relations between the heroesin the eddic cycle than in the saga.

Þiðrekr plays no significant role in the eddic poems. He appears onlyin four instances, in the prose section known as Dráp Niflunga, in theprose placed between Guðrúnarqviða ǫnnur and Guðrúnarqviða in þriðja,and in two stanzas in the latter poem. The prose is obviously composedin order to connect the two poems. The following poem, Guðrúnarqviðaǫnnur, is in this way presented as if Guðrún was telling her story in poeticform to Þiðrekr. It relates the killing of Sigurðr, and how Guðrún ismarried to Atli.

A central narrative about some of the heroes from Þiðreks saga whichhas already been mentioned is the Vǫlsunga saga. This work is usuallydated to the second half of the 13th century, but it is today only extant inone medieval manuscript, NKS 1824 b 4°, dated to c. 1400–1425. The

27

francia et germania


story about Sigurðr Fáfnisbani and the Giúkungar found in this saga inmany ways follows the same lines as that found in the eddic poetry, butthere are also some significant differences. It is not possible in this articleto give full justice to all the interesting relations between the heroic talesof the eddic poems and Vǫlsunga saga on the one hand and Þiðreks sagaon the other, but some important themes will be discussed shortly here.

In Reginsmál it was related that Reginn made a sword for Sigurðrwith which he first cut the smith’s anvil, then killed Fáfnir and finallyReginn himself. The narrative in Vǫlsunga saga provides a rather differentversion. Here Sigmundr Vǫlsungsson receives the sword in an Arthurianway. An old man who is understood to be Óðinn places the sword in alog and says that the one who can draw it will receive it as a gift fromhim. Sigmundr manages the feat without any effort, and carries thesword in all his battles until he finally meets an old man with a spear,allegedly Óðinn, and breaks the sword on his spear. His wife keeps thepieces of the sword and hands them to their son Sigurðr whosubsequently has the smith Reginn make a new and sharp sword fromthem with which he avenges his father. The description of how Sigurðrtrials the sword is quite similar in the Codex Regius version and the onefound in Vǫlsunga saga, even if the latter has a longer introductionreminding of a folk tale, where Reginn three times incites Sigurðr toestablish himself as a warrior and nobleman, and subsequently, on thethird attempt and with the two parts of Sigmundr’s sword manages toproduce the sharpest of swords, Gramr.

Sigurðr hio i stediann ok klauf nidr i fotinn, ok brast eigi nębrottnade. Hann lofadi sverdit miok ok for til arinnar med ullarlagdok kastar i gegn straumi, ok tok i sundr, er hann bra vid sverdinu.Geck Sigurdr þa gladr heim. (Vǫlsunga saga 1906–1908: 37)

Sigurðr struck the anvil and cut it down to the base, and it neitherbent nor broke. He praised the sword highly and went to the riverwith a piece of wool, and throws it against the stream, and it was cutin two when it drifted onto the sword. Sigurðr went home happy.(Our translation)

28



This description of how Sigurðr tests the sword is very close to the onefound in Codex Regius which was presented above. And it divergesradically from the way Sigurðr receives the sword made by the dwarfMímir in Þiðreks saga (I, 315–316):

Nu sælr hann honum æitt suerð, oc er Sigurðr tecr uið suerðinu [bregðrhann þui] oc syniz allgott uapn. oc nu reiðir hann þat suerð sem harðastma hann oc hœgr mimi bana hoɢ.

He now brings him a sword, and when Sigurðr receives the sword[he draws it] and thinks it is a very good weapon, and he now liftsthe sword and deliver a blow as hard as he can, and cuts Mímir todeath. (Our translation)

The sword Gramr is subsequently mentioned a number of times in thesaga, but the mythological dimensions found in Codex Regius or in theVǫlsunga saga are not present. It is a good and sharp sword, but it has noconnection to a mythic past as a gift from Óðinn. Theodore Anderssonin his discussion of the relation between the Norse tradition of Sigurðrand the one found in Þiðreks saga concludes:

Norse intervention in “Niflunga saga” and the prefatory story of Sigurdis minimal. By and large, the translator uses the Norse form Sigurðrrather than the German Sigfrøðr, and he gives Sigurd’s horse and swordthe Norse names Grani and Gramr. His identification of Sigurd’s fosterfather and the dragon as brothers and his inclusion of the birds’ adviceto Sigurd to kill his foster father also look like concessions to Norsetradition […] But there is no evidence that he made substantive altera -tions in the German text before him. If this portion of the book is a fairsample, we may judge that Þiðreks saga is a reasonably faithful transla -tion of the German original. (Andersson 1986: 357)

There are, thus, both differences and obvious connections between thetraditions of the Völsungs in eddic poetry and Vǫlsunga saga on the onehand and Þiðreks saga on the other. The main issues that have been

29

francia et germania


extensively debated in Old Norse as well as Old German scholarship overthe last two centuries concern the common background in an oraltradition, its German origin, and consequently the nature of theScandinavian traditions. Andersson states that “[t]he standard view wasestablished by the early work of Gustav Storm and Henrik Bertelsen,and to a surprising extent their view has weathered more than a centurywithout exciting a great deal of controversy” (1986: 348). This is in manyways correct, but Andersson’s work itself, together with a new Germaninterest in the Norse translation of German material has over the lastdecades generated new and interesting views.7

One question which has been at the centre of interest concerns theoral traditions on which the translation is to some extent based, at leastaccording to the prologue.8 The Scandinavian tradition from the days ofStorm and Bertelsen has accepted the wording of the prologue, claimingthat the narrative is based on tales told by German merchants. Therehave been variations as to the explanations of the arrival of the oraltraditions to Scandinavia, however, and as to how the tradition wastransformed into the Old Norse narrative. One scholarly traditionclaims that the German tales were spread in oral form in Norway andthat they were subsequently combined with more indigenous traditionsof Sigurðr Fáfnisbani in the form we find them in the written com -pilation formed in the mid-13th century as Þiðreks saga af Bern. Anotherposition is that the German oral tradition was translated into Norse andcompiled in more or less undisturbed form in the written saga. A thirdexplanation takes into account the possibility that the German oraltradition took a detour via England and mingled with Anglo-Saxontradition before it was introduced in Norway.

The other position, represented by e.g. Theodore Andersson, is toclaim that the narrative of Þiðrekr was more or less formed in writing inGerman before it was translated into Norse. This position also seems togain support from Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen, who in his discussion of the

7 See e.g. Andersson (1986; 1994; 1997). For the German scholarship, see e.g. Klein(1985) and Kramarz-Bein ((ed.) 1996; 2002). See also the articles by SusanneKramarz-Bein and Robert Nedoma in this book.

8 See also the discussion by Susanne Kramarz-Bein in this book.

30



earliest translations of European works into Norse describes the style ofÞiðreks saga and Karlamagnús saga as follows:

The style of most parts of the Karlamagnús saga and the Þiðreks sagais typical “Translator’s prose”, while the Flóres saga ok Blankiflúr hasa more rhetorical flavour. (Halvorsen 1959: 10)

Halvorsen goes on to treat the plausibility of the compilation as atranslation of oral traditions. He concludes:

This vast collection of tales mainly concerned with Dietrich of Bernand his men is derived from German traditions. The saga, especiallythe prologue, which is preserved only in Icelandic MSS, refers tooral tales, and most scholars have concluded that the traditions werewritten down, in Bergen or in Germany, by a Norwegian or anIcelander, from stories told by Germans. This would be a verystrange thing indeed, in view of the fact that all other translationsare based on written sources. The collection of German populartra ditions by a foreigner in the 13th century sounds very unlikely.(Halvorsen 1959: 24)

Halvorsen made a similar statement when he treated Þiðreks saga inKulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid (1958: cols. 75–76). He hasbeen strongly supported by Andersson who states:

A final negative argument remains to be made. The idea of a Norwegianauthor collecting German tales from Hanseatic mer chants has exerciseda surprising fascination on scholars for over a hundred years. It issurprising because such a mode of composition is quite unexampled inNorse literature. It would seem on the face of it that very compellingarguments would be necessary to make plausible such a proto-folkloristic procedure in the Middle Ages. (Andersson 1986: 366)

Peter Hallberg (1982) presented results concerning chivalric influencesin fornaldarsögur where he included Þiðreks saga. His conclusion was that

31

francia et germania


this saga diverged significantly from the rest of his corpus as to the useof chivalric vocabulary. He started out by claiming:

By far most consistently adapted to the sphere of chivalry is Þiðrekssaga, where the heathen, archaic and heroic world of the Edda hasbeen transposed into medieval kurteisi, very much as it appears inNibelungenlied. Óðinn and other heathen gods or practices are neverreferred to. (Hallberg 1982: 18)

It is interesting to note that Hallberg took for granted the state of Þiðrekssaga as an original work in Old Norse. The saga is adapted to the sphereof chivalry, and the heathen world of the Edda has been transposed intothe medieval world of kurteisi. Hallberg notes the clear parallel to Nibe l -ungenlied, but does not follow up the implications. This is done byAndersson in his article on Þiðreks saga from 1986, where he concludes:

On the whole, the occurrences of riddari in Þiðreks saga, especially thepreponderance of military contexts and the absence of associationswith courtly love, reflect German usage from the twelfth century andnot from 1250, the date usually assigned for the composition of thesaga. (Andersson 1986: 354)

His further conclusion is that the frequency of the word riddari in Þiðrekssaga, rather than to implicate a composition based on verbatim dictation,must be indicating that the text is translated by a Norwegian from aGerman source where the particular use of the word riddari was alreadyestablished (Andersson 1986: 356). Andersson suggests that most of the

32


Birth and adventures ,i!rekr-s lineage and accession to the kingdom of Bern Hildibrandr becomes ,i!rekr-s foster father Heimir is overcome by ,i!rekr and joins his retinue Mb&: Ósantrix woos Oda, Attila conquers Hunland and woos Erka The lineage and adventures of Velent Velent-s son Vi!ga overcomes ,i!rekr

Tab. 2. The structure of ,i!reks saga of Bern, based on Theodore Andersson’s analysis (1986: 369–370).


francia et germania

,i!rekr kills Ekka, joins forces with Fasold, and rescues Sistram Heimir is outlawed ,éttleifr comes of age, joins ,i!rekr, and defeats Valtari .mlungr, Hornbogi, Vildifer, and Herbrandr join ,i!rekr-s retinue Warfare between Attila and Ósantrix Vildifer releases the imprisoned Vi!ga Vi!ga kills Jarl Rimsteinn Vi!ga and Heimir quarrel and are reconciled The birth of Sigur!r and the Niflungs Apogee ,i!rekr-s banquet Marriages Adventure in Bertangaland and the thirteen combats Marriage of .mlungr to Ísungr-s daughter Fallborg Marriage of Sigur!r and Gunnarr Adventure of Herburt and marriage to Hildr Marriage of ,i!rekr, Fasold, and ,éttleifr Mb%: Marriages of Ósantrix and Attila Marriage of Valtari Adventures of Íron and Apollonius Marriage of Vi!ga and Bolfriana Declining fortunes Erminríkr exiles ,i!rekr ,i!rekr-s adventures with Attila Battle of Gronsport Death of Vildifer, Valtari, Nau!ungr, Ortvin, Hjálprekr, Erpr, ,ether, Úlfrá!r, Vi!ga and Erka Death of Sigur!r Death of Fasold and ,éttleifr Death of Gunnarr, H/gni, Ro!ingeirr, etc. Death of Sifka, Hildibrandr, Hera!, and Hertni! Death of Attila Death of Heimir ,i!rekr vanishes Tab. 2. The structure of ,i!reks saga of Bern, based on Theodore Andersson’s analysis (1986: 369–370).

Table 2. The structure of Þiðreks saga of Bern, based on Theodore Andersson’sanalysis (1986: 369–370).


material in the prologue is based on a single German source (Andersson1986: 361–362).

Thomas Klein (1985) has suggested that the compilation Þiðreks sagaaf Bern is based on three stages in life, youth (Jugend), marriage (Heirat)and death (Tod). This division of the compilation is supported byAndersson (1986: 369–370; see Table 2), who presents a brief outline ofthe whole compilation. He points out that this provides a structurereminding one of a life cycle with ancestry, birth, youthful adventure,mature prowess, marriage and death, with a three-partite basic structureof birth, marriage and death (1986: 371).

Another structural feature of the compilation is the introduction oftwelve heroes who form the court or hird around Þiðrekr. The heroesare introduced at different stages in the compilation, and once they arepart of the narrative they tend to play the main role in longer stretchesof it. Kramarz-Bein (2002: 32–55) has discussed the role of the heroesin structuring the compilation. She notes for example that there is adifference between the order of appearance of the heroes in Mb2 and theorder of presentation of them in Mb3/AB respectively.

There is a long scholarly debate as to whether Þiðreks saga should beclassified as a fornaldarsaga or a translated riddarasaga. Kurt Schier (1970)in his introduction to the Icelandic saga tradition, Sagaliteratur, places thesaga among the fornaldarsögur, but this has been disputed. Peter Hallbergargues from a number of traits that Þiðreks saga could just as well beclassified as a riddarasaga as a fornaldarsaga (see e.g. Hallberg 1982: 32).Andersson comes to the conclusion that the saga should be referred toneither of the two groups of texts:

It may seem otiose to contend that Þiðreks saga has very little in commonwith either fornaldarsaga or riddarasaga, since any reader will readilyappreciate the differences, but the point needs to be made for the record.That Þiðreks saga is in no sense a fornaldarsaga may be argued ongrounds of both structure and content. (Andersson 1986: 352)

Whatever the genre of the compilation, however, it must have beenformed in the same context as the riddarasögur,9 and its transmission in

34



Icelandic tradition has been in a similar context as the fornaldarsögur. It istherefore profoundly interesting that it may represent a different culturalinfluence from the riddarasögur but in the very same milieux, i.e. that wecould distinguish between a French influence on the vernacular literature,in this book represented by Strengleikar, and a German influence thattoday is only to be seen in Þiðreks saga.

In Iceland, the compilation itself was most likely transmitted in themanuscript tradition of the 14th to 16th centuries, even if the directevidence for such a transmission is today lost.10 The antiquariantranscriptions of the redaction AB described below, however, indicatesthat the saga was part of this tradition and formed according to newinterests in relation to fornaldarsögur and later romances.

The main Swedish work concerning Þiðrekr and his heroes isDidrikskrönikan, which was translated from the Old Norse text, presumablythe one found in the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol (see e.g. Henning 1970).It cannot be stated with any greater certainty where the translation fromOld Norse to Old Swedish took place, and the exact time is hard to establish.There are many indications, however, supporting a dating of the translationin the 1450s or at the latest in the 1460s (see e.g. Henning 1970: 28).Henning points out that there are examples of mentioning Þiðrekr inSwedish sources before this time, as e.g. in Erikskrönikan (dated to c. 1320)and the Swedish Herr Ivan (usually dated to the first decades of the 14th

century), but he concludes that these examples do not directly indicatewhether a Norwegian or Swedish text of the chronicle existed in Sweden(28–29). It should also be mentioned, in support of Henning’s arguments,that the extant manuscripts containing witnesses to the works referring toÞiðrekr are from the 15th century or even later. In medieval manuscriptculture new information could easily be merged with an older work to makeit more updated. This is hinted already by Henning himself in relation toProsaiska krönikan, when he states:

9 See e.g. Henning (1970: 11) who states that it “anses […] allmänt stå i samband medden ganska omfattande översättningsverksamheten under den norske kungen HåkonHåkonssons regering (1217–1263)”.

10 For a description of the early modern transmission of the saga, see e.g. Voigt (1967:464).

35

francia et germania


För dateringen av S Di är det faktum viktigt, att S Di citeras först iden interpolerade och icke i den ursprungliga versionen av PrK. Dådetta verk förmodas ha tillkommit på initiativ av Karl Knutsson, villman gärna såsom Klemming och Ståhle förlägga också översättningenav N Di till kretsen kring den litterärt intresserade kungen. (Henning1970: 29)

If the translation, as Henning suggests, was initiated by king KarlKnutsson, this would perhaps indicate the possible milieux where thetranslation took place. Tentatively Henning proposes that the translationwas made in a monastery in Stockholm, as had previously been suggestedfor Prosaiska krönikan (1970: 29–30). A connection to the king KarlKnutsson was already suggested by P.A. Munch, who in 1850 arguedthat the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol had been moved to Sweden in 1449,when Karl Knutsson was crowned in Trondheim (Munch 1850). Thiswas contended by Gustav Storm who had found in a manuscript fromVadstena (now in the Uppsala University library with the signum C 564)a list of books that seem to have belonged to the Norwegian bishop ofBergen in the years 1305–1314, Árni Sigurðsson, where there is mentionof a Þiðreks saga (Storm 1880: 185). From this, Storm argued that thetranslation was most likely done in the monastery in Vadstena. Henningis reluctant to accept Storm’s arguments, however. He concludes:

Man kan således lika gärna förmoda, att Mb hamnat i ett Stock -holmskloster som i Vadstena. Mer än till en sådan förmodan kanman dock ej sträcka sig, då alla upplysningar saknas om Mb:s öden,innan Joh. Bureus 1636 gjorde sin avskrift och översättning avVilkinasagan i Mb (Isl. papp. 4:o nr 54). (Henning 1970: 31)

From this it can be stated that the Mb manuscript was most likely inSweden in the mid-15th century, either in Vadstena or in a monastery inStockholm. It was probably used as a source for the Swedish Didriks -krönikan. In his contribution to this book, Jon Gunnar Jørgensendiscusses further the implications of this transfer of an Old Norse workto Swedish.

36



The manuscripts

As already mentioned, DG 4–7 fol. is the main manuscript whichcontains Strengleikar. The manuscript dates to c. 1270 and as preservedtoday, it consists of two parts, which are written by four scribes. Tveitane(1972: 14) suggests that the two parts were first bound together by theBenkestokk family, the 16th century owners of the manuscript. The twofragments share, however, common characteristics which may indicatethat they were written at one and the same scribal center. Several placesof origin have been suggested for the manuscript, such as the royalchancellery in Bergen or the Cistercian monastery Lyse Abbey, inHordaland, south-west Norway (Tveitane 1972: 26).

The first part of the manuscript, of which only two folios are extanttoday, contains the end of Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, an Old Norse trans -lation of a lost Latin work by the Icelandic monk Oddr Snorrason. Thetext exists in one more Norwegian manuscript which is slightly olderthan DG 4–7, namely AM 310 4° from c. 1230–40, and a youngerIcelandic manuscript Holm Perg 18 4°. Oddr’s writing was deeplyindebted to other Norse historiographers, such as Theodoricus, whowrote Historia de Antiquitate Regum Norwagiensium, and the writer ofÁgrip af Nórges konunga sögum, as well as classical authors such as Virgil(Andersson 2003: 1–16). He had literary connections to GunnlaugrLeifsson, a monk at Þingeyrar monastery in Iceland, who also wrote aLatin life of king Óláfr Tryggvason (Holtsmark 1974: 9–20).

The second part consists of four texts, and all of them arefragmentary to various degrees. The first one is Pamphilus, a translationof the Latin Pamphilus de amore, which was composed by an anonymousauthor at the end of the twelfth century, probably in England or northernFrance (Tveitane 1972: 28). The text is a drama, written in dialogue formbetween Pamphilus, Galathea, the goddess Venus and an old womancalled Anus. It is a love story, with special emphasis on the moral featuresof the main protagonist Pamphilus. The text became very popular andwas translated into many languages by the end of the 13th century (Holm-Olsen 1940: 7–8). Because of this and because of the notes showing thatking Hákon Hákonarson was involved in the translation of two of the

37

francia et germania


other three texts in the same manuscript, Holm-Olsen (1940: 8) suggeststhat the king may have commissioned the translation of Pamphilus aswell, even though there is no explicit statement to this effect. The partof Pamphilus which is preserved corresponds to the first 490 verses ofthe Latin original, which included in total 780 verses. The translationseems to be relatively close (Holm-Olsen 1940: 9). The Old NorsePamphilus exists in this manuscript only. The text was edited by LudvigHolm-Olsen in 1940, including an introduction on the palaeography andorthography, a facsimile representation and a transcription.

The second text in the main part of the manuscript is a Dialoguebetween Courage and Fear, which is highly fragmentary and consists of13 lines only. The dialogue was translated from Moralium dogmaphilosophorum, a collection of moral philosophy, alluding to the pseudo-Senecan De remediis fortuitorum. Moralium Dogma was written in themiddle of the twelfth century and was a very popular work in the wholeof Western Europe up to the Reformation. There is an extensive academicdebate about the identity of the author of the Latin work, and somesuggestions have been William of Conches, Walter of Chatillon or Alanof Lille (Glorieux 1948; Gauthier 1951). The dialogue also appears, in aslightly longer and different version, in Hauksbók, a major Icelandicmanuscript from the beginning of the 14th century. The Hauksbók versionof the dialogue includes a comment on the authorship of the Latin source-text: Bok þersa gerði meistari Valltare af sambvrð tveggia manna, ok rœðir hvarrvið annan, af sinv efni hvarr ‘This book was made by master Valltariconcerning a conversation between two persons, and they talk to each other,each of his subject’ (Heilagra manna sögur: 446). Hauksbók also containstexts on Icelandic and universal history, cosmology and theology. Eventhough Haukr may not have been responsible for the whole manuscript,the manuscript as a whole claims an authoritative position in Old Norseliterature and history within a European literary and historical polysystem.11

Hauksbók also contains a dialogue between Body and Soul. The twodialogues are edited together under the title “Viðrœða likams ok salar” byCarl Richard Unger in an edition of Heilagra Manna Sögur from 1877.

11 For a recent tratment of Haukr and Hauksbók see Sverrir Jakobsson (2007).

38



The third text in the main part of DG 4–7 is Elíss saga ok Rosa -mundar. This is a translation of the Old French chanson de geste Elye deSaint-Gille. The Old French poem is from the twelfth century and ispreserved in one manuscript only, BnF fr. 25516 from the second half ofthe 13th century. In addition to DG 4–7, the Old Norse saga is extant inseveral Icelandic manuscripts: Holm perg 6 4° (1400‒1425), AM 533 4°(1450‒1500), Holm perg 7 fol (1450‒1475) and AM 579 4° (1450–1475).There are also three paper manuscripts, viz. AM 119a 8°, Holm papp 174° and Holm papp 46 fol.12 Elíss saga is edited by Eugine Kölbing (1881).A new edition with an English translation is also under development, tobe published by the Norwegian National Archive’s Series of Old Norsetexts. Even though Elíss saga has received some attention in recentresearch (Eriksen 2010, 2009 a and b), it is one of the least researchedsagas from the corpus of translated riddarasögur.

The rest of the manuscript is taken up by Strengleikar. The collectionhas been edited several times, by Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir (2006),Cook and Tveitane (1979) and Keyser and Unger (1850). As alreadymentioned, it also appears in a facsimile edition (Tveitane 1972). Unlikethe other three texts in the main part of DG 4–7, Strengleikar as acollection, as well as the individual stories on their own, is one of themost popular and researched texts from the riddarasögur. The articles inthis collection testify of this and provide a sample of research topicselucidated by this source.

Keeping in mind the content of the main part of DG 4–7 fol, it maybe said that the manuscript corresponds well to many of the contemporaryNorwegian manuscripts and fragments. As mentioned above, many ofthese contain translations, primary and secondary, such as e.g. Karlamagnússaga, Barlaams saga, Þiðreks saga, Konungs Skuggsjá, and the Old NorwegianHomily Book. In addition, many other texts are assumed to have beentranslated, transferred or re-written into Old Norse in the 12th and 13th

centuries, but these are remnant in younger Icelandic manuscripts only,

12 On the relationship between Holm perg 7 fol and the three paper manuscripts, seeBlaisdell (1985). Blaisdell claims that AM 119a 8° and Holm papp 17 4° both derivefrom Holm perg 7 fol, but that they are mutually independent, and that Holm papp46 fol derives from Holm papp 17 4°.

39

francia et germania


such as e.g. Alexander saga, Trójumanna saga, Breta sögur and Veraldar saga.Thus, the texts in DG 4–7 should be read as part of this intensive andhighly-competent activity of making translations in 13th century Norwayand Iceland.

The manuscript stands out, however, from this context, as it is theonly preserved manuscript which contains four translations of fourdifferent genres in one book. From this perspective, it provides anexplicitly coherent Old Norse reading of Latin and Old French literaryculture, and is a unique source when discussing book-culture, readershipand literary aspirations of 13th century Norwegian aristocracy. It is also awonderful example of the aspirations of Old Norse literary discourse toraise its stature, by transferring and appropriating popular Latin and OldFrench material.

The two parts of the manuscript are written by four hands altogether.The Óláfs saga fragment is written by hand Otrd.13 Scribe Pamph/ Elisswrote Pamphilus, the fragment from the dialogue between Courage andFear, and Elíss saga. Strengleikar is started by Str I, in the same columnwhere Pamph/Elis ends his work. Str II follows Str I in the middle of asentence, but on a new gathering, and writes the rest of the text. Theclose cooperation between the scribes indicates a common place of originfor their work, most probably at one and the same scribal center. Eventhough the Óláfs saga fragment may originally have been planned as aseparate manuscript, it may still have been written at the same scribalcenter, if judged by the consistent size, mise en page and mise en texte ofthe two parts of the manuscript. The manuscript, with its two parts,today consists of 8 gatherings, most of which are fragmentary. Table 3indicates the position of the lacunas, and the distribution of thegatherings, folios, and scribal hands with regard to each other.

The close cooperation between the scribes, and the overtly Europeancontent of the manuscript, suggest a place of origin of considerable size,a rich library and broad cultural competence. Both the royal chancelleryand the Cistercian Lyse abbey would have been such scribal centers.

13 The division of the different hands was originally suggested by Marius Hægstad(1935) and is also followed by Tveitane (1972).

40



francia et germania

Part Quire Contents Hand Extent and state I " "r–&r: Óláfs

saga Tryggva-sonar

Otrd fols. "–&

II " %r–)v: Pamphilus $ra"–"%: Dialogue $ra–"#va): Elíss saga

Pamph/Elíss + leaves; Fols. (, ) and $ are missing

& fols. +–"%: Elíss saga

Pamph/Elíss + leaves; The middle pair of leaves is missing

% "(–"#va): Elíss saga "#va$: Streng-leikar

Pamph/Elíss "#va$–&": Str. I

+ leaves; fols. "(–&"; Extant

( &&–&': Strengleikar

Str. I + leaves; Extant, but the order of the two middle pairs is mixed up and the leaves appear in the order (-%-$-)

) %*–%): Strengleikar

Str. II + leaves; Lacks the middle pair of leaves

$ %$–(&: Strengleikar

Str. II + leaves; Fol. ( has been cut out

# (%–((: Strengleikar

(%r–(%v: Str. II

+ leaves; Only the outer pair of leaves is extant

Tab. 3. Quires, fols. and hands in DG 4–7 fol.

Table 3. Quires, folios and hands in DG 4–7 fol.


It is not certain, however, exactly how the manuscript was used andby whom it was read. One potential answer to this question appears in thefirst of the two parts of the manuscript. On the last page of this first part,there is the name of possibly one of the earliest owners. A now illegiblesign has been deciphered to read herra Snara Aslaksson a mik (Tveitane1972: 13). A man called Snare or Snara Aslaksson is known to have beenone of the leading men under king Hákon Magnússon (1299–1319). Thename appears in various letters from the period 1296–1319, which indicateshis gradual climb in the social hierarchy, from someone without a title toa herra, a member of the council of state and a baron (Tveitane 1972: 14).It is unknown where Snara lived, but various documents indicate connec -tions to Stavanger, Vest Agder, a place called Hamre in Kvinesdal (whichhas been interpreted by some as Hamar), and Huseby in Lista (which wasthe royal estate). He thus seems to have been based in south-westernNorway. The correspondence, some of which took place between KingHákon Magnússon of Norway and king Edward II of England, makes itclear that Snara was a tradesman and owned a ship (Tveitane 1972: 14).Thus, it may be assumed that the manuscript remained in the same partof the country as it was written. If the manuscript was written in the royalchancellery, then it remained within the same social class – the seculararistocracy. It should be emphasized, however, that it is uncertain whetherSnara Aslaksson owned the whole manuscript as we know it today. Asimilar type of ownership and audience, i.e. secular aris tocracy, is howevernot implausible also for the second part of the manuscript.14

Þiðreks saga is preserved in one medieval manuscript only, Holm perg4 fol, dated to the end of the 13th century, c. 1275–1300 (ONP: I, 413).This manuscript, however, today has a number of lacunae, which can insome instances be complemented by material from two later papermanuscripts (AM 178 fol (A) and AM 177 fol (B), see below).15 The textfound in Holm perg 4 fol is referred to as Mb. Gustav Storm (1874: 100–

14 For a more detailed discussion of the owners of the manuscript, see Tveitane (1972).15 There are also numerous paper manuscripts from the 17th century containing copies

made from the manuscripts of independent text critical value. For these manuscriptswe refer to Gödel’s catalogue for the Royal Library collection of Old Norse manuscripts(1897).

42



103) suggested that the compilation could be divided into two redactions,Mb1 (hands Mb1–2) and Mb2 (hands Mb3–5), with two redactors (handMb2 and hand Mb3 respectively, see the discussion of the hands below).

It was argued by Storm (1880: 191) that the Mb codex has been partof the library owned by the Bergen bishop Árni Sigurðsson in the early14th century. This library, or parts of it, seems at some point in the 15th

century to have been moved to Vadstena in Sweden, and Storm suggestedthat the codices Holm perg 4 fol and Holm perg 6 fol (containing theNorwegian Barlaams saga ok Josaphats) were among the books arrivingin Sweden (Storm 1880: 190–192; see also Gödel 1897: 20–21). This hasbeen refuted by Bengt Henning, who argues that the Mb manuscript hasmore likely been in the possession of the Franciscan monastery inStockholm in the 15th century (Henning 1970: 31). It has been more orless accepted in later scholarship that Mb most likely has been the sourceto the Swedish narrative about Þiðrekr, Didrikskrönikan. Whether thistranslation or re-working of the narrative of Þiðrekr took place in theFransiscan monastery or in Vadstena is still a bone of contention. Mostscholars seem to agree, however, that the composition of the work tookplace in mid-15th century Sweden (see e.g. Henning 1970: 31–32).

As mentioned above, the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol is written byfive scribes, usually characterised as Mb1–5. The parts of the compilationproduced by the respective hands are presented in Table 4. The relationbetween the five scribes has been thoroughly discussed by Bertelsen(1905–1911: v–viii). Here it suffices to note that Bertelsen consideredMb2 to have been the redactor for the part written by himself and Mb1,this based on the observation that Mb2 has written all the custods andchapter headings of this part of the manuscript (Bertelsen 1905–1911:vi). The third scribe (Mb3), who is responsible for the chapter headingsin the rest of the codex (except the one at chapter 387, which is the workof Mb4), is by Bertelsen suggested as the redactor for the part written byMb4, Mb5 and himself (Bertelsen 1905–1911: vi). Not only is Mb3,according to Bertelsen, responsible for the redaction of this part of thecompilation, he has also made considerable changes in the work of Mb2.On fols. 50 to 59 (one quire of eight fols. and one quire of two fols.),which he has placed between fols. 49 and 60 (fols. 5 and 6 in the original

43

francia et germania


quire 7), he has added a considerable amount of text. And to make thepreceding and subsequent paragraphs fit his addition, he has crossed outwith red ink some of Mb2:s work on fol. 49v (the last eight lines) and fol.60r (the first twenty-two lines). In the edition this addition is found onpage I: 28211 to page I: 350 (see Table 5). The deleted text is subsequentlyrendered by Mb3 on fol. 56r (I: 3229–32512 in the edition).

The paper manuscript AM 178 fol is usually dated to the 17th century(see e.g. ONP: I, 413). According to Kristian Kålund, the scribe can beidentified as Jón Erlendsson, one of the well-known scribes of the 17th

century (Kålund 1889–1894: I, 144). Árni Magnússon received themanuscript on loan from the priest Árni Jónsson in Hvítadalur, and

44


Quire Folios Hand " "–$ Mb" & #–"( Mb" % ")–&& Mb& ( &%–%* Mb& ) %"–%+ Mb& $ %'–(( Mb& # ()–$& Mb&: ()–(', $*–$&r%"

Mb%: )*–)', $&r%"–$&v + $%–#* Mb% ' #"–#+ Mb% "* #'–+( Mb% "" +)–'& Mb%: '&v"" "& '%–'+ Mb( "% ''–"*$ Mb( "( "*#–""( Mb(: ""%v&&

Mb): ""%v&&–""( ") "")–"&& Mb) "$ "&%–"&+ Mb): "&%–"&)v""

Mb(: "&)v""–"&+ "# "&' Mb% Tab. 4. Quires, fols. and hands in Holm perg 4 fol.

Table 4. Quires, folios and hands in Holm perg 4 fol.


seems also to have had access to the exemplar, called Brœðratungubók,probably lost in the fire in Copenhagen in 1728 (Kålund 1889–1894: I,145). Árni Magnússon writes: hana feck eg af Þormode Torfasyne, enn hannaf Helgu Magnussdottur i Brædra tungu […] Eg synde Sigurde Gudnasyneþessa bok 1704. og þeckti hann hana, hveria hann til forna sied hafde hia HelguMagnussdottur ‘I got it from Þórmóður Torfason, and he got it fromHelga Magnúsdóttir in Bræðratunga […] I showed this book to SigurðurGuðnason in 1704 and he recognised it, and he had seen it a long timeago at Helga Magnúsdóttir’s place’ (Håndskriftfortegnelser: 45; ourtranslation). The paper manuscript AM 178 fol was used extensively tofill lacunae in the Mb and referred to as A in Bertelsens edition (Bertelsen1905–1911: x–xi; see Table 5). This manuscript is of great importancefor our understanding of the compilation of Þiðreks saga, as it containsthe prologue and large parts of the work which are not extant in themedieval manuscript Holm perg 4 fol.

Another paper manuscript, AM 177 fol, dated to 1690–1691 (ONP:I, 413), was referred to as B by Bertelsen (1905–1911, xi–xii) and used inthe variants. From Árni Magnússon’s notes (Håndskriftfortegnelser: 44–45) we can conclude that this manuscript was copied from a medievalmanuscript called Eiðagás (by Bertelsen (1905–1911: xi) also referred toas Austfjarðabók), which was probably lost in the Copenhagen fire in 1728.

A third paper manuscript used by Bertelsen in his edition of Þiðrekssaga is Holm papp 100 fol, which is described in the introduction(Bertelsen 1905–1911: xii–xvi) as C, but is not represented in thevariants. This manuscript is by Bertelsen characterised as a copy of twoexemplars, B and Mb, and where it is copied from Mb it also shares thelacunae (Bertelsen 1905–1911: xii–xiii). Bertelsen provides a comparisonof C and AB respectively in order to establish the stemmatic relations ofthe three (Bertelsen 1905–1911: xiv–xvi). This manuscript has noindependent text critical value, but it is still of interest as it to some extentilluminates the relation between the extant paper manuscripts and thelost vellums.

A last, and for the transmission of material concerning Þiðrekrinteresting work, is the Swedish Didrikskrönikan (Sv), most likely atranslation, or rather re-writing, from the Norwegian work produced

45

francia et germania


46


Bertelsen’s outline Ms. Page in Bertelsen Prologus A I: "–#

,i!rekr-s ancestors and kin A I: +–%"

,i!rekr-s childhood and adolescence A I: %"–(%

Vilkinasaga, first redaction Mb" I: ((–#%

About Velent Mb" Mb& A

I: #%–##' I: ##'–"%& I: #%–"%&

About Vigra Mb& A

I: "%&–"#% I: "%&–"#%

,i!rekr fights Ekka and Fasold Mb& A

I: "#(–&*% I: "#(–&*%

About Detlev danski Mb& A

I: &*%–&(%); &($–&(' I: &*%–&('

,i!rekr becomes king and helps Attila

Mb& A

I: &)*–&#% I: &)*–&#%

,i!rekr helps Erminríkr Mb& A

I: &#%–&+" I: &#%–&+"

Sigur!r is born and grows up Mb& Mb% A

I: –&+&"* I: &+&""–%"' I: &+&–%"'

King ,i!rekr holds a feast Mb% Mb& A

I: %"'–%)* I: %)"–%)# I: %"'–%)*, %)&–%)#

King ,i!rekr-s march to Bertangaland

Mb& Mb% A

I: %)#–%$( I: %$)–II: %# I: %)#–II: %#

The weddings of Sigur!r and Gunnar

Mb% II: %#–(%

About Herburt and Hildir, and ,i!rekr-s marriage

Mb% II: (%–$"


47

francia et germania

47

francia et germania

Vilkinasaga, second redaction Mb% A

II: $"–++"', '(&&–"*) II: ++"'–'(&"

About Valter and Hildigunde Mb% II: "*)–"*'

About Apollonius and Iron Mb% A

II: "*'–"%##, "(&&(–")+ II: "%##–"(&&%

About Erminríkr and Sifka, and ,i!rekr-s escape

Mb% II: ")+–"#'

Attila-s and ,i!rekr-s battles with Osantrix and Valdemar

Mb% Mb( A

II: "#'–"+%+ II: "+%'–"+#"&, "'"#–&*#"&, &"*&$–&"+ II: "+#"%–"'"#, &*#"&–&"*&$

,i!rekr-s failed attack on Erminríkr Mb( II: &"+–&)+

Tab. 5. The outline of Bertelsen’s edition in relation to the used manuscripts and page/line in the edition. MB"–) = Holm perg 4 fol, hand 1–5; A = AM 178 fol; Sv = the Swedish version of the narrative about !i"rekr. When Mb and A run parallel in the edition Mb is placed above A on the page.

!etta slagh mun !ier kient hafa !in kona enn æigi !inn fader – Hildibrand und Hildebrandsage in der "i#reks saga af Bern Robert Nedoma

The death of Sigur!r Mb( II: &)+–&$+

The death of Fasold and Detlev danski

Mb( Mb)

II: &$+–&#(&% II: &#(&%–&#)



Grimhildr-s marriage to Attila, and her revenge on her brothers

Mb) Mb( A

II: &#)–%"%+, %"$"–%&#"( II: %&#"(–%&+ II: %"%+–%"$"

,i!rekr regain his kingdom Mb( A

II: %&+–%(") II: %(")–%)+



,i!rekr-s further adventures and marriage

A II: %)+–%$+

The death of Attila Mb% A

II: %#*"%–%#(&% II: %$'–%#*"&, %#(&%–%#)

The end of Helmer, Vidga and ,i!rekr

A II: %#)–%'(

Addition Sv II: %')–%'+



Table 5. The outline of Bertelsen’s edition in relation to the used manuscriptsand page/line in the edition. MB1–5 = Holm perg 4 fol, hand 1–5; A = AM178 fol; Sv = the Swedish version of the narrative about Þiðrekr. When Mband A run parallel in the edition Mb is placed above A on the page.

Table 5. The outline of Bertelsen’s edition in relation to the used manuscriptsand page/line in the edition. MB1–5 = Holm perg 4 fol, hand 1–5; A = AM178 fol; Sv = the Swedish version of the narrative about Þiðrekr. When Mband A run parallel in the edition Mb is placed above A on the page.


between 1434 and 1447 (see e.g. Storm 1874: 139–144). Storm was the firstto establish that it was based on the still extant codex Holm perg 4 fol(Storm 1874: 144). This work is today extant in two medieval manuscripts,SR E 9013 (earlier signum Codex Skokloster 115, 116 4°) dated to the endof the 15th or early 16th century by Hyltén-Cavallius (1850–1854: xli), andHolm papp K 45 4°, according to Hyltén-Cavallius from the first part ofthe 16th century (1850–1854: xliii). These two manuscripts were used byHyltén-Cavallius in his edition of Didriks krönikan (1850–1854), and alsoprovided the end of the narrative in Bertelsen’s edition of Þiðreks saga afBern (1905–1911: 395–398; see Table 5: Sv).

Þiðreks saga has been edited a number of times. The earliest editionwas produced in Sweden in the early 18th century by Johan Peringskiöldunder the title Vilkina saga. This edition, with parallel Swedish and Latintranslations formed what may be seen as the end of the Gothicist interestin Swedish historiography of the second half of the 17th century. It wasbased on the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol, and there are a great number ofcontemporary manuscripts in the Royal library in Stockholm to witnessthe activities of the editor and his collaborators. The first modern editionwas published by Carl Richard Unger as Saga Ðíðriks konungs af Bern in1853. This was the standard edition until Henrik Bertelsen published hiscritical edition with the title Þiðreks saga af Bern in the years 1905–1911.This is today the standard edition. The Swedish Didrikskrönikan was editedby Gunnar Olof Hyltén-Cavallius in 1850–1854 under the somewhat mis-guided title Sagan om Didrik af Bern, of course based on the title of the OldNorse work.

Late medieval manuscripts of Old Norse translatedliterature

To recapitulate, the two texts which are the main focus in this book,Strengleikar and Þiðreks saga, were both translated into Old Norse in the13th century, a period when the Old Norse literary system had a closeconnection to Latin and other vernacular literary traditions. In addition,translations seem to have had a primary and high-status position in this

48



literary system; they were highly influential upon local literary productions,and in this way were central tools when the Old Norse language andliterature claimed participation in the pan-European literary polysystem.

Even though versions of Strengleikar and Þidreks saga are notpreserved in younger Norwegian or Icelandic manuscripts, it is relevantto have a glance at the development in the position of Old Norsetranslations from Latin and other vernaculars over time. This wouldemphasise even more their significance for the development of OldNorse literature during the 13th century and in general.

The Old Norse translations of Latin and vernacular material wereextensively copied, rewritten and re-used in new sagas, ballads and rímurall the way up to the 19th and 20th centuries. Judging by the number ofpreserved riddarasögur – translated and indigenous – in medieval and post-medieval Icelandic manuscripts, these stories formed the most popularliterary genre through time.

One of the main tendencies in the development of Old Norse manu -scripts from the medieval to the early modern period is the change in theircontent, from manuscripts containing more frequently one text, tomanuscripts containing collections of texts, which did not always have clearor obvious thematic connection. There is a parallel development in OldFrench manuscripts. The oldest Old French secular manuscripts mostoften contain a single text and are copied by one scribe. In early 13th centurymanuscripts start to contain several texts written by several scribes, whichmay be seen as the beginning of commercial book production in French(Busby 2002: 17). Such “miscellanies” would often include texts whichwere traditionally classified as belonging to different genres ‒ saints’ liveswould, for example, appear in codices together with secular texts, such aschansons de geste and romances.

A similar development is seen in Old Norse manuscript culture. Inthe 13th century translated texts tend to appear alone or together withother translations in a manuscript (e.g. Holm perg 4 fol or DG 4–7 fol),while in the 14th and 15th centuries they start to occur together withindigenous literature in miscellaneous manuscripts.

The most appropriate example from DG 4–7 fol and Holm perg 4fol, which may illustrate the change in codicological context through

49

francia et germania


time is Elíss saga, since it is preserved in several younger Icelandicmanuscripts: Holm perg 6 4° (1400‒1425), AM 533 4° (1450‒1500),Holm perg 7 fol (1450‒1475) and AM 579 4° (1450–1475). These fourmanuscripts have all slightly different content and provenance, but theyare all collections of romances – translated and indigenous – and thusexamples of such miscellanies. Holm perg 6 4° includes today twelvetexts of originally more: eight translations, two of which from Latin,the rest from Old French and four Icelandic romances. The order theyappear in today is: Amícus saga ok Amilíus, Bevers saga, Ívens saga,Parcevals saga, Valvers þáttr, Mírmans saga, Flóvents saga, Elíss saga,Konráðs saga, Þjalar-Jóns saga, Eiriks saga víðförla (only one leaf), Möttulssaga, and Clárus saga.

AM 533 4° includes Mágus saga, Partalópa saga, Karls þáttr vesæla,Stúfa þáttr skálds Þórðarsonar, and Elíss saga – a mix of translated andIcelandic romances and Íslendingasögur.

Holm perg 7 fol includes two translated and nine Icelandicriddarasögur. The translated sagas are Elíss saga and Bevers saga, and theIcelandic works are Rémundar saga keisarasonar, Sigurðar saga turnara,Konráðs saga keisarasonar, Ectors saga, Gibbons saga, Viktors saga ok Blávus,Sigurðar saga fóts, Partalópa saga, and Adonias saga. Note that Partalópasaga is sometimes regarded as a translation.

AM 579 4° includes Elíss saga, Adonias saga, Rémundar saga, Þorsteinssaga vikingssonar, and Hektors saga. This is thus a collection of translatedand Icelandic romances and one fornaldarsaga. Other collections of riddara -sögur that include fornaldarsögur are AM 343 a 4° and AM 471 4°. Yet othermanuscripts combine Icelandic romances, fornaldarsögur and Íslendinga -sögur, such as for example AM 566 a and b fol, also called Eggertsbók. Parta includes Sigrgarðs saga frækna, Grettis saga Ásmundarsonar, Grettisfærsla,Gísla saga Súrssonar, and Harðar saga Grímkelssonar; part b includes Mágussaga jarls, Hermanns saga ok Jarlmanns, and Þorsteins saga vikingssonar.

These examples illustrate the general tendency characterising youngerIcelandic manuscripts – to include texts that sometimes lack a clear,obvious thematic connection, and belong to what are traditionallyregarded as different literary genres. Despite the miscellaneous content,the mentioned manuscripts (and many others that mix the same genres)

50



do not generally include historical or religious texts. Such texts tend toappear in separate manuscripts, which are nonetheless sometimes writtenby the same scribes and in the same scribal milieux as the romancemanuscripts. Holm Perg 6 4° is for example mainly written by a scribewho seems to have had a central function in the production of Bergsbók,Holm perg 1 fol (Stefán Karlsson 1967: 82; Slay 1972: 22), a manuscriptcontaining Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar, Rekstefja and Óláfs drápa Tryggvasonar,Lilja, Geisli, and Óláfs saga helga. Holm perg 7 fol is claimed to have beenwritten at Möðruvellir fram, a church farm with a secular scribal center,which was also the place of origin of AM 81 a fol, also called Skálholtsbókyngsta (containing Sverris saga, Böglunga saga, and Hákonar sagaHákonarsonar) and AM 243 a fol (Konungs Skuggsjá) (Sanders 2000: 36–37). These examples suggest that Icelandic scribes in the late Middle Agesdistinguished between translated and indigenous romances, fornaldar -sögur, and even sometimes Íslendingasögur, on the one hand, and historicaland religious writings on the other. The distinction may have been basedon a notion of different genres, different status, function and receptionof the texts, or a combination of these. Translations as such were howevernot distinguished from indigenously produced texts, testifying that OldNorse as language and literary system had a stronger and moreindependent position in the 14th and 15th century, than in the 13th.Translated literature was no longer transmitted in separate manuscriptsbut was an internalised and integrated part of the literary system, withthe same status and premises for transmission as indigenous literature.

Conclusion

Strengleikar and Þiðreks saga, translated from French and Germanrespectively, are two of the main texts that characterise Old Norse literarytradition in the 13th century. They bear witness to the outward-lookingorientation of Old Norse literary interests during a period when the OldNorse literary system was actively claiming participation in the Europeanliterary polysystem. Translated literature was at this time distinguishedfrom indigenous literature because of its very nature of being translated.

51

francia et germania


Gradually, the translations introduced during this period became a moreintegrated part of the Old Norse literary system. This development bearswitness to the constancy, but also to the dynamic and ever-changingcharacter of the link between Old Norse, Latin and other vernacularliteratures.

In the above, we have accounted for this development by paying closerattention to the transmission of the two works and to some of the motivesfrom them, on a textual and manuscript level. The articles in this bookwill further elaborate on certain issues that we have touched upon hereonly briefly. The main aim of this introductory article was, however, notto account for and introduce all the topics that are covered in the followingarticles. Rather, the main aim was to convey and clarify a starting point:to emphasise our broad understanding of translations and their centralrole in the making of Old Norse literary culture, which occurred throughan active interplay with Latin, French and German literary traditions. Theliterary traditions from Francia and Germania, both Latin and vernacular,were thus the two main respondents and partipants in the dialogic makingof Old Norse literary culture. It is with this horizon of inquiry as a startingpoint we now wish to turn to the detailed studies presented in this book.

52



Francia et Germania – Translations and the Europeanisation of Old Norse Narratives (with Karl G. Johansson)

Documents