Materiality and Textuality of Les Lais of Marie de France and Strengleikar – a Case Study of the Prologue and Laustic

Materiality and Textuality of Les Lais ofMarie de France and Strengleikar – A CaseStudy of the Prologue and Laustic

Stefka Georgieva Eriksen

The reception mode of medieval texts, i.e. private reading or publicreading, has been a core topic of discussion for many medievalists

during the last fifty years.1 It is, now, commonly accepted that publicreading remained a predominant mode of mediating a text in the MiddleAges, even when literacy was well-established and books were abundant.Moreover, such intended vocality structured various formal and graphicalaspects of text-witnesses,2 in order to produce the desired effect on thelector and the listener. In this article, I will discuss the intended receptionmode of a manuscript by looking at the relation between various formaland graphical characteristics of a text-witness, as it appears on themanuscript page. The argument will be based on a study of two excerptsfrom Strengleikar, the Prologue and Laustic, seen in comparison to theirOld French source-versions.

Many scholars have debated the intended reception mode of a greatspan of European continental literature.3 In the field of Old Norse philology,however, there are relatively few studies on the issue. Stefanie Würth (2003)studies the rhetoric in Völsunga saga. She points out that the saga is rootedin the written textual tradition of the 13th century, but at the same time,

1 See e.g. Ong (1982), Clanchy (1993), Green (1994), Coleman (1996).2 I am distinguishing between a text-work, a text-witness (a version of a text-work) and a

text-carrier (manuscript). These terms were first introduced by Bo-A. Wendt (2006),and have later been used by Kleivane (2009), Orning (2012), and Eriksen (2009a; 2010).

3 Some studies focus on Cicero’s prose (Hutchinson 1995), Sallust’s and Livy’s prose(Aili 1979), the Catholic Homilies of Ælfric (Harlow 1959), the 15th century Mirror ofthe Blessed Life of Jesu Christ by Nichlos Love (Zeeman 1956), Chaucer’s prose(Schlauch 1950), prose texts from Elizabethan and Jacobean time (Ong 1944), OldFrench (Fleischman 1990, Busby 2002) and English literature (Crosby 1936), just tomention a few.

179

Francia ombrukket14_Layout 1 07.01.13 15:49 Side 179

some of the text’s stylistic elements, such as the chronological narrative ofthe plot, syntax and formulaic elements, would have facilitated the oralperformance of the text (Würth 2003: 109). Karl G. Johansson (2005), onthe other hand, is more interested in the manuscript context of a textwitness. He studies two versions of Skírnismál and interprets the differencesbetween them, when it comes to the actual situation of the poem withinthe two manuscripts and the graphic layout of the pages themselves, asindicating that the intended public reading of one of the manuscripts isreflected on the manuscript page to a greater extent than the other. JakobBenediktsson (1987a; 1987b; 1987c) and Kirsten Berg (1999) have discussedanother issue, namely the possible existence of cursus, or Latin prose-rhythmin Old Norse literature. While the former is more open for the idea thatcursus was adapted from Latin in Old Norse, especially in translations ofreligious works from the latter half of the twelfth century, and later incourtly style-literature, the latter is a bit more critical when it comes to themethodological principles behind the discussion of cursus. The tentativeconclusion of both scholars is that Latin prose-rhythm seems to exist in OldNorse literature, but this has to be further studied and discussed. Elsewhere(2009a; 2009b and 2010), I have discussed the implications of thecorrespondence between various aspects of the materiality and textuality ofthree versions of Elye de Saint-Gille/Elíss saga for their intended receptionmode, by looking at the differences of the manuscript contexts and the miseen page of several versions of the work.

As it becomes clear from the above, various graphical and textualfeatures may be interpreted in relation to reception mode. In this article,I will focus on two main groups: graphical features including generallayout, initials, majuscules, and punctuation principles, and textualfeatures, such as various narrator’s comments and lexical references totelling, hearing, listening, writing, etc. The significance of these para -meters for the intended reception mode of a text has been discussedseparately (on graphical features see e.g. Busby 2002; Parkes 1992; ontextual features, see e.g. Coleman 1996; Fleischman 1990). Here, I willconsider them collectively and study the interconnection between them.

Paul Saenger (1982: 374 –75) argues that the codex and the manuscriptpage were preferred to the scroll by early Christians, who, compared to

180

stefka georgieva eriksen


the Romans, had a more visual, rather than vocal, approach towardsreading. He suggests that writing of the text in lines, which representmeaning units, indicates intention for visual reception and possibilityfor visual reference. Andrew Taylor (1991), on the other hand, arguesthat there is no straightforward relationship between the format inwhich the writing is arranged (codex vs. roll), or the page layout and aspecific mode of reception. He studies manuscripts with certain sizeand layout (small, plainly ruled, wide margins, some decorations), whichwere traditionally regarded as minstrel manuscripts, and claims that theymight just as well have been owned by literate knights and clerks andread privately. Taylor points out as well that 13th and 14th century rollsmay have been used for public reading. Despite the lack of straight -forward relationship between layout and reception mode, the arrange mentand structuring of the text on the manuscript page was done in ameaningful way, to the scribe, and possibly according to an intendedfunction of the manuscript.

Initials, majuscules and punctuation are essential elements in thismeaningful system, since they structure the text on various levels. Theirpresence may be related to an intention for silent reading. Differing fromcontinual Roman script (no punctuation) which was vocally performed,a text structured by various elements would not have needed to bevocalised in order to be understood (Saenger 1982: 392). On the otherhand, initials, majuscules and punctuation function as eye-catchers onthe manuscript page, and ease the finding of a specific place in the textand of the remembering of the text during a vocalisation. These featureswould have facilitated the orator in his performance. They would alsohave indicated places for pauses in the performance, thus creatingmeaningful semantic entities of various lengths, facilitating the receptionand comprehension of what was said for the audience (see Parkes 1992:65–66).

In addition to these graphical characteristics, some of the textualaspects of a text-witness may also indicate a certain intended receptionmode. Narrator’s comments of various kinds, i.e. addresses to theaudience, requests for attention, organisational comments indicatingwhat is to come, or proverbial type of comments, make it plausible that

181

materiality and textuality


the text-witness was to be presented to a collective listening audience.4

Aesthetic effects, such as use of alliteration, would also have been audiblyappealing. The orator would have been able to vocally emphasise thealliterated passages, because of their rhythmical nature, and thussharpened the attention of the listeners. The use of direct speech in anarrative, it being a different discourse than the story itself, may also beregarded as a rhetorical tool used by a conscious writer to draw theattention of his listeners to an important excerpt. Note, however, thatspeech given indirectly may also indicate an intention for a vocalisingnarrator, since it “reports the content of a speaker’s utterance […] in thenon-personal language of the narrative” (Fleischman 1990: 32). Finally,various references to telling, saying, hearing, listening, books, writing,composing, etc. convey information about reception mode. Such lexicalterms have been studied in Latin (Clanchy 1993: 255–256; Carruthers1990: 223), High Middle German (Green 1994; 2002), French (Crosby1936, Vitz 1999: 25), English (Coleman 1996: 65) and Old Norse(Spurkland 1994: 13) texts. When considering them as indicators tointended reception mode, it is significant to evaluate all aspects of a giventext-witness in relation to each other, since only then it is possible toproduce a plausible interpretation. Note that expressions containing suchreferences may sometimes be seen as formulaic, used by the writer to fillin or satisfy the rhythmical and aesthetic requirements. Even if seen asformulaic, such expressions would have contributed to the rhythmicaland aesthetic qualities of the text-witness and may thus be related to anintention for vocalisation.

Before starting the examination of these aspects in the chosensources, which are translations from Old French to Old Norse, I wishto address the issue of the character of medieval translations as a text-generating activity. Would a medieval translation entail a faithfulrendering of the source-text or would it allow for interpretation,adaptation and contextualisation? In her book Rhetoric, Hermeneutic and

4 See Green (1994: 73–74) discussing and exemplifying various narrator’s commentsin High Middle German texts. Crosby (1936: 107) argues the same with regard toOld French texts and Coleman (1996: 73–74) studies Chaucer from the sameperspective. See also Fleischman (1990).

182



Translation in the Middle Ages (1991), Rita Copeland argues that eventhough the relationship between source- and target-text could varyimmensely, all medieval translations were hermeneutical interpretationsof old material in the creation of something independent and new. Onone end of the scale, she places primary translations, which by definitionstate their status as translations, claim service to their source-texts andfunction as faithful re-renderings of the originals. There are, however,primary translations that, even though still stating a status as translations,diverge considerably from their sources, and thus appear as moreindependent re-writings with a new and independent function. On theother end of the scale, Copeland places secondary translations, which donot claim that they are translations, but still make use of known elementsand motifs in innovative ways.

In this article, I will combine Copeland’s argument with a new-philological perspective on the material. This means, as argued byStephen Nichols (1990), that not only intralingual translations of text-works, but also interlingual re-writings of one and the same text-workshould be studied as independent material in their own right. Nicholsemphasises also that all aspects of a text in a manuscript, i.e. codicological,graphical and formal, rhetorical and rhythmical, have to be studied inorder to properly assess its full significance.

Keeping in mind the theoretical considerations mentioned above, i.e.the existent, but still flexible, link between various characteristics of atext-witness and a manuscript, a certain mode of reception, and the rangeof modes an interlingual re-writing can relate to its source text, I will, inthis paper, study two excerpts from Strengleikar in order to assess theimplications of the form and appearance of the text-witnesses for theirintended reception mode. The two excerpts I will focus on are thePrologue and Laustic. These represent two genres and have differentfunctions in the collection as a whole. Any differences in the graphicaland rhetorical qualities of the two excerpts will be interpreted assuggesting difference in communication mode and purpose of the twoexcerpts.

The two excerpts will be studied in their manuscript context.Strengleikar, as a collection, is preserved in one medieval manuscript only,

183



De la Gardie 4–7 fol (DG 4–7).5 The manuscript is dated to c. 1270 andis suggested to be a copy of the actual translation of Strengleikar. It seemsto have originated in south-west Norway, possibly in a monasticinstitution, or at the royal chancellery.

There is no straightforward link between the text-witnesses of thePrologue and Laustic in DG 4–7 and an Old French source. Themanuscript Harley 978 (H) has, however, been suggested as a potentialpossible source for some of the Old Norse strengleikar. The main part ofH is dated to the years 1261–1265 and the manuscript is associated at anearly stage with the Benedictine abbey of Reading (Taylor 2002: 84–85). The Old Norse collection includes eleven of the twelve lais, existentin H. Three excerpts – the original part of the Prologue, Laustic andChaitivel – exist only in the two manuscripts mentioned above. Eventhough some of the lais appear in other Old French manuscripts, the OldNorse strengleikar most often accord with those of the H manuscript(Cook & Tveitane 1979: xvii).6 The lais in H are traditionally seen as thework of one author, Marie de France, a view which has been thoroughlydiscussed (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xxi; see also “Introduction” in Burgessand Busby’s translation from 1999). The origins of Marie de France’slais, as she mentions in her own Prologue, are claimed to be oral storiesof Celtic origin. Similarly to Würth’s argument concerning Völsungasaga, the lais in H presumably represent a textual tradition, which wasbased on oral tradition. The text-witnesses could therefore be expectedto contain structures which either reflect the oral origin and transmissionof the stories, or indicate an intention for the further vocalisation of thetext-witnesses in the manuscript.

In the following, the Old Norse versions of the two stories, as theyappear in DG 4–7, will be compared to the Old French versionsappearing in H. The parameters of comparison will be the graphical and

5 The manuscript is published in a facsimile edition by Mattias Tveitane (1972).6 It should be pointed out that another manuscript, one usually called S in the

Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris (nouv. acq.fr. 1104) contains versions of fourteen ofthe stories found in DG 4 −7. This manuscript contains, thus, the highest number ofthe source-texts of the Old Norse strengleikar (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xviii). Thetwo excerpts of interest do not appear in S, however.

184



textual features which were mentioned above. The comparison will beperformed on two levels: first, between the Old French and Old Norseversions of the two texts and secondly, between the two worksthemselves, as representatives of two different genres. The two-levelcomparison will serve to illustrate two main issues: (1) the translationstrategy behind the versions of the two texts in DG 4–7, seen as part ofone and the same manuscript, and also as representatives of two genres;(2) the reception mode of the versions of the two texts in DG 4–7, seenin comparison to the Old French versions, and in comparison to eachother.

Materiality

The general layout of H is standard for 13th century manuscriptscontaining Old French verse narratives (Busby 2002). The writing isstructured in two columns of thirty-two lines. The first letter of eachline is a capital, set slightly apart from the rest of the writing space. Themanuscript contains a great variety of text-witnesses (see Taylor 2002:84). The lais of Marie de France, beginning with her Prologue, start on arecto page, after a blank verso page. In other words, the beginning of thecollection of lais is visually distinguishable. It should, however, be saidthat the only graphical separation between the Prologue and the first laiGuimar is a one-line initial slightly larger than the initials used at thebeginning of each new line. This distinguishes the beginning of Guimarfrom the beginnings of the rest of the lais, since all of these, includingL’Aüstic, start by two-line initials.

Another difference between the Old French Prologue and L’Aüstic isthe punctuation used. The middle of each couplet of the Prologue ispunctuated by a punctus elevatus, or a type of inverted semi-column andthe end is marked by a punctus. This type of punctuation continuesthroughout the next several pages. On some of the consequent pages,decorative patterns appear at the end of some lines, filling out the blankspace. L’Aüstic is, however, written without any punctuation, as are alsothe text-witnesses coming prior and after the lai. Keeping in mind that

185



the lais of Marie de France in H are written by one and the same scribe(Taylor 2002: 84), the variation in punctuation mode bears witness toscribal inconsistencies and unstable attitude to the scribal process, whichare typical features of medieval manuscript culture. Possibly, in thebeginning of the writing process, the scribe was concerned with markingrhythmical semantic units, which was however later abandoned as aproductive writing strategy.

The general layout of the text-witnesses in DG 4−7 is surprisinglysimilar to that in H – two columns of text of 39 lines structured byinitials of various sizes. From this perspective, DG 4−7 distinguishesitself from many of the preserved contemporary Norwegian manuscriptssince they are structured in one column. A main difference in the layoutof H and DG 4−7 is due to the form of the written text. The Old Norsestrengleikar are in prose, and are subsequently not written in verse lines.The prose is structured by three- and two-line initials and majuscules,which mark respectively the beginning of a new story, a new paragraph,and a minor semantic unit. Many of the two-line initials are howevermissing, with blank rectangular space left for them. There are some fewdifferences only between the general layout of Laustic and the Old NorsePrologue. The Prologue, being the beginning of a new group of text-witnesses opens with space spanning four lines for an initial, which ismissing. There is space left for a title or a rubric above the Prologue,which is also blank. The Prologue comprises of three paragraphs, the firsttwo of which are original composition, introducing the Old Norsecollection, and the third being the translation of Marie de France’sPrologue. Each paragraph starts with a two-line initial, as does the firststory itself, Guimar. The beginnings of the rest of the short stories aremarked by rubrics, as well as three-line initials. Guimar appears thus tobe closely linked to the Prologue, just as in H. The beginning of Lausticin DG 4−7 is marked by a rubric and a three-line initial. The text-witnessis divided in three paragraphs, the second of which is marked by a three-line initial, and the third by a two-line initial. The first line of eachparagraph ends by a decorative motive which gives extra visual emphasisto that specific line. The structuring in three paragraphs distinguishesthe Old Norse text-witness from the Old French, which is not divided

186



in paragraphs. The paragraphs are further visually structured bymajuscules, which are underlined by red filling. In addition, the letterson the first line of each column are embellished by longer and decoratedascenders. A majuscule S on the top line of the column is enlarged andfurther decorated.

The punctuation in the Old Norse text-witnesses is simple andconsists of one symbol only, the period, situated on the line. Thepunctuation is not done according to grammatical principles: itsometimes signifies the end of a simple clause without a verb, a shortsentence with one verb, or a longer sentence with a sub-clause. Thepunctus seems thus to have functioned as a rhythmical marker, facilitatingthe reception and possible vocalisation of the text-witnesses. Onedifference between the two excerpts is the length of the passages betweenpunctus. These are especially long in the first part of the Old NorsePrologue, contain less punctuation and numerous conjunctions. Theconjunctions could therefore have had a similar function as the punctuson some occasions. This difference may be due to the genre of the twoexcerpts, or to the fact that they were written by two different scribes.The rhythmical and meaning-defining function of the punctuation, eventhough done according to different principles, was thus present in bothtext-witnesses and both manuscripts.

A final characteristic of the mise en page of Laustic, which is relevantfor the reception of the text-witness, is the presence of a rectangularspace, which is carefully surrounded by the text. The rectangular, whichtoday is cut out, may have contained an illustration. The presence of anillumination is noteworthy, as it was probably the only one in themanuscript, emphasising the significance of both the manuscript as awhole and Laustic itself.

Textuality

When it comes to the textuality and rhetorical tools appearing in the twoversions of the Prologue, these would obviously differ, because the Old Norseversion is extended. In order to be able to interpret the differences between

187



the two versions, I will focus on the common part only. Both versions of thePrologue contain various rhetorical devices which are relevant for thediscussion of both translation strategies and reception mode. These include:

General comments of proverbial character:

1 (1) Qui Deus a duné esciënce/e de parler bone eloquence,/ne s’endeit taisir ne celer,/ainz se deit voluntiers mustrer. (Die Lais de Mariede France: 22)

Anyone who has received from God the gift of knowledge and trueeloquence has a duty not to remain silent; rather should one be happyto reveal such talents. (Marie de France 1999: 41)

Ollum þæim er guð hævir let vizsku ok kunnasto ok snilld at birta þasamer æigi at fela ne lœyna lan guðs i ser. hælldr fellr þæim at syna oðrummeð goðvilia þat sem guði likaðe þæim at lia. (Strengleikar 1979: 6)

It is not fitting that all those to whom God has given wisdom andknowledge and the eloquence to make these known should hide andconceal God’s gift within themselves; rather, it is proper that theyreveal to others with good will that which it pleased God to grantthem. (Strengleikar 1979: 6)

Addresses to the audience:

2 (43) En l’onur de vus, nobles reis (Die Lais de Marie de France: 24)

In your honour, noble king (Marie de France 1999: 41)at fœra þer herra minn hinn hœverske konongr (Strengleikar 1979: 8)

to give to you, my lord and gracious king (Strengleikar 1979: 9)

188



3 (56) Ore oëz le comencement! (Die Lais de Marie de France: 24)

Now hear the beginning! (Marie de France 1999: 41)

The address is cut in the Old Norse version.The third example can also be seen as a narrator’s comment that has

an organising nature, indicating to the audience what is to come.Another rhetorical and aesthetic device used in the Old Norse version

is alliterated description. At the end of the Old French Prologue, the kingis described as nobles and curteis, or worthy and courtly. The descriptionin the Old Norse is hygnum hofðingia ok hans hirðar kurtæisom klærkom.ok hœværskom hirðmonnom ‘a wise chieftain and the courteous clerks ofhis court and his gracious retainers’. The hirð of the king is explicitlymentioned, and the description is alliterated, which gives extrarhythmical and aesthetic emphasis to the end of the prologue.

In addition, both versions of the Prologue contain abundant informa -tion on both hearing, listening, books and writing, and the process oftranslating, composing, compiling, etc. Some of the information istransmitted accurately, but small details are often slightly changed, whichcontribute to a difference in the conveyed attitude to literacy in the twoversions. There are three major differences between the two versions ofthe Prologue. First, the writing of the Old French version belongs clearlyto a manuscript culture, where glossing is considered a part of the readingand reception process, contributing to the better understanding of the text:

4 (9) Custume fu as anciëns,/ceo testimoine Preciëns,/es livres quejadis faiseient/assez oscurement diseient/pur cels ki a veniresteient/e ki aprendre les deveient,/que peüssent gloser la letre/e delur sen le surplus metre. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 22)

It was customary for the ancients, in the books which they wrote(Priscian testifes of this), to express themselves very obscurely sothat those in later generations, who had to learn them, could providea gloss for the text and put the finishing touches to their meaning.(Marie de France 1999: 41)

189



The emphasis on books, reading and glossing is in the Old Norse versionreplaced by reference to speaking, words and oral tradition:

5 Þa var siðr hygginna ok hœverskra manna i fyrnskonne at þæir mælltofrœðe sin sua sem segi með myrkom orðom. ok diupom skilnengom.saker þæirra sem ukomner varo. at þæir skylldo lysa með liosomumrœðom þat sem hinir fyrro hofðo mællt. (Strengleikar 1979: 6)

It was the custom of wise and well-mannered men in olden days thatthey should set forth their learning, so to speak, in dark words anddeep meanings for the sake of those who had not yet come, that theseshould explicate in lucid discourse that which their forbears had said.(Strengleikar 1979: 7)

This example indicates that the writing of H takes place in a culture,where writing and literacy are developed and established to a greaterextent than in the culture, which hosts the writing of DG 4−7.

The second major difference between the two versions of thePrologue concerns the reception mode of the respective books. Explicitreferences to the art of telling, hearing, and vocal performance aresometimes totally cut out (see example 3 above) or stressed to a lesserextent (examples 6 and 7 below) in the Old Norse version.

6 (1) Qui Deus a duné esciënce/E de parler bone eloquence/ne s’endeit taisir ne celer/ainz se deit voluntiers mustrer/Quant uns granzbiens est mult oïz/dunc a primes est il fluriz,/e quant loëz est deplusurs,/dunc a espandues ses flurs. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 22)

Anyone who has received from God the gift of knowledge and trueeloquence has a duty not to remain silent: rather should one be happyto reveal such talents. When a truly beneficial thing is heard by manypeople, it then enjoys its first blossom, but if it is widely praised, itsflowers are in full bloom. (Marie de France 1999: 41)

190



Ollum þæim er guð hævir let vizsku ok kunnasto ok snilld at birtaþa samer æigi at fela ne lœyna lan guðs i ser. helldr fellr þæim at synaoðrom með goðvilia þat sem guði likaðe þæim at lia. Þa bera þæirsem hinn villdaste viðr lauf ok blóm. ok sem goðlæikr þæirrafræigizst i annars umbotum þa fullgærezt allden þæirra ok nœreraðra. (Strengleikar 1979: 6)

It is not fitting that all those to whom God has given wisdom andknowledge and the eloquence to make these known should hide andconceal God’s gift within themselves; rather, it is proper that theyreveal to others with good will that which it pleased God to grant them.Then they will bear leaves and blossoms like the most splendid tree,and as their goodness becomes known through the improvements ofothers, so will their fruit become fully ripe and nourish other people.(Strengleikar 1979: 7)

7 (49) En mun quer pensoe e diseie,/sire, ques vos presentereie./Sevos les plaist a receveir,/mult me ferez grant joie aveir/a tuz jurs maisen serrai liee/Ne me tenez a surquidiee,/se vos os faire icestpresent./Ore oëz le comencement! (Die Lais de Marie de France: 24)

In my heart, lord, I thought and decided that I should present themto you, so if it pleased you to accept them, you would bring me greathappiness and I should rejoice evermore. Do not consider mepresumptuous if I make so bold as to offer you this gift. Now hearthe beginning. (Marie de France 1999: 41)

Þui ihugaec oftsamlega at samna lioðen oll ok i æina bok at fœraþer herramínn hínn hœverske konungr ef þer lik aþa er mer fagnaðr at starf mittþækkez ok hugnar sua hygnum hofðingia ok hans hirdar kurtæisomklærkom. ok hœværskom hirðmonnom. (Strengleikar 1979: 6)

Thus I frequently think of gathering all the songs into one book to

191



give to you, my lord and gracious king. If you like them, I am gladthat my work pleases and satisfies such a wise chieftain and thecourteous clerks of his court and his gracious retainers. (Strengleikar1979: 7)

The third main difference between the two versions of the Prologue isthe attitude towards translating and translations. The content oftranslations is an important issue in both versions, but the premisesbehind the choice of what is to be translated are different. In the OldFrench version, the poet is concerned with being original and does notwant to do the same as everybody else. That would fit the idea of thetranslator or poet as an authoritative figure, no matter whether it wasMarie de France or not. The Old Norse translator seems to havemisunderstood the relationship between French and Latin. In addition,according to him, it is the degree of popularity of a work that advocatesfor the need of its translation.

8 (28) Pur ceo començai a penser/d’alkune bone estoire faire/e de Latinen Romanz traire/mais ne me fust guaires de pris/itant s’en suntaltre entremis. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 22)

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. (Mariede France 1999: 41)

Oc fyrir þui ihugaða ec at gæra nokora goða sogu. ok or volsku ibokmala snua at þat mætte flæsta hugga. Er flæstir mego skilia.(Strengleikar 1979: 6)

For this reason I thought of making some good story and oftranslating it from French into Latin, that most might be comfortedby that which most could understand. (Strengleikar 1979: 7)

192



The Old Norse version has an extra sentence, which proclaims theusualness, and in the same time, the status of translations.

9 Siðan sem alldren læið framm ok æve mannanna þa vox list ok athygliok smasmygli mannkynsens. með margskonar hætte. sva at i ollumlondum gærðuzc hinir margfroðasto menn mælande sinna landatungum. (Strengleikar 1979: 6).

As time and the lives of men wore on, man’s art and attentivenessand acumen increased in many kinds of ways, so that the mostlearned men in every country began expressing themselves in thelanguage of their country (Strengleikar 1979: 7).

It is interesting, how in the Old Norse version, translating becomesrelated to oral tradition and retelling. This stands out from the moretraditionally accepted view that translations should be regarded asbelonging to the textual tradition of glossing, which was mentioned inthe Old French version of the text.

Rhetorical and aesthetic devices are used in the two versions ofLaustic as well, such as for example:

General comments of proverbial character:

10 (61) Cil oiselet par grant dulçur/mainent lur joie en sum la flur/Kiamur a a sun talent/n’est merveille s’il i entent. (Die Lais de Marie deFrance: 212)

On the flower-tops the birds sang joyfully and sweetly. If love is onanyone’s mind, no wonder he turns his attention towards it (Mariede France 1999: 95).

Sa er þa var ælskandi matte miok ihuga, af fuglanna songum þat erhonom likaðe at ælsca. (Strengleikar 1979: 102)

193



Then he who was a lover could, because of the songs of the birds,deeply contemplate whatever it pleased him to love. (Strengleikar1979: 103)

Addresses to the audience/Narrator’s comments:

11 (1) Une aventure vus dirai. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 210)

I shall relate an adventure to you. (Marie de France 1999: 94)

Nv vil ec sægia yðr æinn atburð. (Strengleikar 1979: 102)

Now I want to tell you an adventure. (Strengleikar 1979: 103)

12 (65) Del chevalier vus dirai veir. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 212)

I shall tell you the truth about the knight. (Marie de France 1999: 95)

The comment is cut out in the Old Norse version.Alliteration is once again used in the Old Norse version. The first

example below is a sentence which is added in the Old Norse version,and therefore, possibly emphasised rhythmically to a greater extent.

13 Þa syngr hon ok gellr um nætr sua fagrt. ok miori roddu at yndelegtok ynnelegt er til at lyða. (Strengleikar 1979: 102)

Then it sings and chants at night so beautifully and in such a thin voicethat it is delightful and delicious to listen to. (Strengleikar 1979: 103)

14 friðre ok fagre kono. hyggenne ok hœværskre. (Strengleikar 1979: 102)

a fair and fetching, clever and courteous woman. (Strengleikar 1979: 103)

194



Another rhetorical device which appears in Laustic, but not in the Pro -logue is direct speech, mainly because of the nature of the two works. Ontwo occasions the direct speech in the Old French version is translatedwith direct speech in the Old Norse. On one occasion, however, amonologue, which in the Old French is given in direct speech is cut outin the Old Norse. The monologue concerns the lady’s fears that her loverwould think she is faint-hearted, after her husband has killed the night -ingale.

The two versions of Laustic include references to speaking, hearingand listening, books and writing, and the process of composing orwriting down. Such references are sometimes translated quite close, asin example 11 above and the following examples:

15 (135) En une piece de samit/a or brusdé e tut escrit. (Die Lais de Mariede France: 216)

In a piece of samite, embroidered in gold. (Marie de France 1999: 96)

Siðan tok hon gullvofet pell […] ok þar umhuærfis saumaðe hon gylltabokstafe. at hænne var harmr ok hugsott at dauð hans. (Strengleikar1979: 104)

Then she took a cloth adorned in gold […] around it she stitched giltletters, for she felt distress and dejection on account of his death.(Strengleikar 1979: 105)

16 (139) Sun message li a chargié,/a sun ami l’a enveié. (Die Lais de Mariede France: 216)

Her message she entrusted to him/ and sent him to her beloved. (Mariede France 1999: 96)

195



ok bauð honom at bera sua buet fuglenn unnasta sinum. (Strengleikar1979: 104)

and told him to carry the bird to her sweetheart this way. (Strengleikar1979: 105)

17 (143) Tut sun message li cunta/e l’aüstic li presenta. (Die Lais deMarie de France: 216)

Related the whole message to him and presented him with thenightingale. (Marie de France 1999: 96)

þa fœrðe hann honom fuglenn ok sagðe honom allt þat sem fru hanshafðe boðet honom. (Strengleikar 1979: 104)

he gave him the bird and told him everything the lady had requested.(Strengleikar 1979: 105)

18 (159) Un lai en firent li Bretun. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 218)

from which the Bretons composed a lai. (Marie de France 1999: 96)

af huæim brættar gærðu æitt strænglæiks lioð. (Strengleikar 1979: 104)

from which the Bretons made a lai. (Strengleikar 1979: 105)

These references indicate that the Old French text-witness is based on oralstories and is intended to be related vocally. Examples 15–17 may beinterpreted as a general reference to the function of writing. An object is,in this case, embroidered with text and the two together – object and text– have significance as authenticity markers, but the message itself is relatedorally. This reminds of the function and reception of letters, as described

196



by Michael Clanchy (1993), regarding English context, and Terje Spurkland(2000) regarding Old Norse context. The reference to the compositionprocess is ambiguous in both language versions, since the words used (firentand gærðu) may refer both to oral composition and composition in writing.Note that the verb gæra was used in the Prologue in relation to translationas well (gæra sogu […] ok snua), which gives an impression that the processesof composing, writing down, translating may have been regarded as similarin the Old Norse literary culture.

On two occasions, the reference to vocal presentation is cut out ormodified.

19 (157) Cele aventure fu cuntee/ne pot estre lunges celee/un lai enfirent li Bretun/e l’Aüstic l’apelë hum. (Die Lais de Marie de France:218)

This adventure was related and could not long be concealed. TheBretons composed a lay about it which is called Laüstic. (Marie deFrance 1999: 96)

Þesse atburðr for um allt brætland. Ok gærðo brættar af þæssom atburðstrænglæik þann er þæir kalla laustik lioð. (Strengleikar 1979: 104)

This adventure circulated through all of Brittany, and the Bretonsmade out of this adventure the lai which they call “The Lai ofLaustic”. (Strengleikar 1979: 105)

20 (65) Del chevalier vus dirai veir. (Die Lais de Marie de France: 212)

I shall tell you the truth about the knight. (Marie de France 1999: 95)

The reference is missing in the Old Norse version.The same change, i.e. less focus on telling and vocal performance,

occured in the translation of the Prologue from Old French to Old Norse.

197



Summary and Conclusion

The aim of this article was to comment on the translating, or writing,strategies of the scribes of Strengleikar and the intended reception modeof two versions of the Prologue and Laustic. Such a conclusion will bemade on basis of the comparison of several graphical and textualcharacteristics of the two versions. The clearest tendencies of thecomparison will be summarised below.

There are several graphical and textual features which are similar inthe two manuscripts, while others were changed. The manuscript page isstructured in two columns in both codices. The beginning of the Prologueis visually clear as an introduction of a separate group of text-witnesses,even though this is much more pronounced in H than in DG 4−7. ThePrologue seems tightly related to Guimar, the first story in the collection,which distinguishes the beginning of the latter from the beginning of, forexample, Laustic. The beginning of Laustic, as well as of the other stories,is visually clear, but this is emphasised in different ways in the twomanuscripts. The rhetorical devices used in the two versions of both worksare the same, i.e. various narrator’s comments (addresses to the audience,proverbial and organisational comments), direct speech, and variousreferences to writing, reading, translation, etc. While some of these aretranslated faithfully, others are changed or cut out on some occasions.

The differences between the two manuscripts are more numerous.The mise en page of DG 4−7 is characterised by rubrics, initials of varioussizes, majuscules, decorative patterns separating the paragraphs, andpossibly even illuminations, while H’s mise en page is simpler, structuredby two-line initials marking the beginning of the separate lais and theverse being written in lines. Sometimes punctuation marks accentuatethe structuring of the text-witnesses in verse lines. The text-witnessesin DG 4−7 are thus structured on more levels than those in H. This isconfirmed by Laustic comprising three paragraphs in DG 4−7, and onlyone in H. The structuring of the text-witnesses is related to their form;the Old French is written in verse lines of meaningful units, while theOld Norse prose, written in running text needs to be structured bymajuscules and punctuation.

198



There are differences between the two versions regarding therhetorical devices used as well. Addresses to the audience are sometimescut out in the Old Norse version. Alliteration is, on the other hand, usedonly in the Old Norse versions of both the Prologue and Laustic. Inaddition, the Old French text-witnesses seemed to reflect a textualmanuscript culture developed to a greater extent than the Old Norse one,which gave greater emphasis to the significance of oral tradition. Thisobservation concerned composing, writing down and translating texts;these processes seemed to allow and invite for the scribe’s personalimprovement and originality in the Old French textual culture, whilecollective oral tradition and popularity were emphasised as significantprinciples for these processes in the Old Norse context. A final differencewas that telling and hearing or listening were mentioned to a lesserdegree in the Old Norse text-witnesses compared to the Old Frenchones.

These similarities and differences bear witness both to the nature ofthe translations and their reception mode. Despite the differencesmentioned above, the two versions are rather similar. In addition, in thepart of the Prologue which is an original Old Norse composition, it isexplicitly said that the stories were translated from Old French. Thus,they may be characterised as primary translations, to use Rita Copeland’sterm. The presence of certain differences indicates however that the re-writers(s) were not entirely faithful to their sources, but possibly soughtto adapt their versions to the existing literary norms in the Old Norseculture. The latter hypothesis may be supported by the explicit commenton the main reasons for translating a text, which occurred only in theOld Norse version, namely a story’s popularity and appeal among manypeople. In addition, a comparison of Elíss saga from DG 4−7 to an OldFrench version resulted with a similar conclusion, namely that themanuscript was written mainly to comply with the existent literarynorms in 13th century Norway, even though some new elements wereintroduced (Eriksen 2010).

Regarding the intended reception mode, the existent differences inboth the graphical and textual features of the two versions suggest thatthey were intended to be received in different ways. The Old French

199



version contains an abundance of references to telling and listening, andthe book itself, which make intended public reading plausible. In thesame time, it is written cleanly and neatly, with few graphical eye-catcherson the page. It is, thus, plausible that the public reader would have beenacquainted with the book and its content, if he was expected to find aspecific excerpt in it. The reader could be either a professional at a secularor religious centre, or a private owner who would have read his book incompany or alone. These two hypotheses may indeed be strengthenedby the fact that the manuscript H has been associated with the monasteryof Reading, based on the content of the manuscript, and otherinformation in it. Andrew Taylor (2002: 93, 136) even argues that themanuscript was possibly a private manual, owned by one William ofWinchester, a Benedictine monk, who would have read his bookprivately, and maybe in small informal groups.

The layout of DG 4−7 is slightly different, containing morenumerous and various graphical markers, which would have facilitatedthe finding of a specific text. On the other hand, the studied text-witnesses contain less of the rhetorical devices and lexical evidences,which could have suggested an intended public reading. The manuscriptseems to have been created in a literate culture developed to a lesserdegree than the one in which H is produced, and with stronger links tooral tradition. The manuscript and the text-witnesses within it appearthus as a cultural element, introducing a certain degree of novelty, andsimultaneously being adapted to its own literate and cultural context.Based on the study above, both private and public reading are plausiblereception modes. More detailed analysis of Elíss saga and the wholemanuscript has indeed indicated that parts of the book may have beenintended for private reading, while others were possibly meant for publicreading (Eriksen 2010). This hypothesis makes it plausible that DG 4−7was also a private book, intended to be enjoyed in different readingcontexts, possibly at a secular cultural centre somewhere around Bergen.Judging by the differences between DG 4−7 and H, the reading contextsof the two manuscripts seem to have been different, even though bothwere possibly private books. Their respective readers would have haddifferent habits and attitudes towards not only reading, but also writing,

200



trans lating and composing. The common feature for the two literarycontexts, which is now accepted as characteristic of medieval manuscriptculture in general, is that these processes, i.e. reading, writing, translatingand composing, shared a hermeneutical interpretative nature, and in thesame time allowed for variance, individualisation and adaptation to anintended function and communicative context of the individual manu -scripts.



Materiality and Textuality of Les Lais of Marie de France and Strengleikar – a Case Study of the Prologue and Laustic

Documents