2012 Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson 1 - Libre PDF

Francia et Germania Translations and the
Europeanisation of Old Norse Narratives

Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson
ranslations have in all times provided new impulses in literate

cultures. Old Norse literate culture was no exception. The earliest
translations, which must have been essential for the first steps towards
a vernacular literature, were of Latin texts, but in the second quarter of
the 13th century there appear translations from other vernaculars,
primarily French, but also from German. In this article we will
introduce one of the central translations from French, the Strengleikar
and the only extant evidence of German translations into Old Norse,
ireks saga af Bern. These works represent a new phenomenon in Old
Norse literate culture and provide influences from two vernacular
literatures with different character, and therefore may have had slightly
varying impact on the target culture. We have little knowledge of the
actual context for the translations and the actors taking part in the work.
For the translations from French the scarce information tells us that a
certain brother or abbot Robert was the translator of some of the works,
starting with Tristrams saga in 1225, at the request of the king, Hkon
Hkonarson. There are all in all five texts that seem to have been
translated under the commission of king Hkon. They all provide some
information about their making:
Tristrams saga:
Hr skrifaz sagan af Tristram ok snd drttningu, hverri talat verr
um briliga st, er au hfu sn milli. Var liit fr hingatburi
Christi MCCXXVI r, er essi saga var norrnu skrifu eptir
befalingu ok skipan viruligs herra Hkonar kngs. En brir Robert
efnai ok upp skrifai eptir sinni kunnttu me essum ortkum,
sem eptir fylgir sgunni ok nu skal fr segia.
9
stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Written down here is the story of Tristram and queen snd and of
the heartrending love that they shared. This saga was translated into
the Norse tongue at the behest and decree of king Hkon when 1226
years had passed since the birth of Christ. Brother Robert ably
prepared the text and wrote it down in the words appearing in this
saga. And now it shall be told. (Tristrams saga ok sndar: 2829;
from AM 543 4, late 17th century)
vens saga:
Ok lykr her sgu herra Ivent. Er Hakon kongr gaml lett snua or
franzeisu J norenu. (vens saga: 147; from Holm Perg 6 4, c. 1400)
And the saga of Sir ven ends here, which King Hkon the Old had
ordered translated from French into Norse. (vens saga 1999: 99)
Mttuls saga:
Nv seigir esse bk fra einum kynligum og gamansamligum atburd
er giordist innann hirdar hinns dyrliga og hinns frga Artus kongs.
er hafde alt Eingland og Bretland frialst vndir sig. Enn uilijk
sannindi sem valskann sndi mier a norrnada eg dur
aaherndum til gamans og skiemtanar suo sem virdugligur Hakon
kongur son Hakonar kongs baud fakunnugleik mnum ad giora
nockut gamann af essv epterfylgianda efnne. (Mttuls saga: 57;
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 place
at the court of the illustrious and renowned king Arthur, who held
all England and Brittany under his sway. And this true account,
which came to me in French, I have translated into Norwegian as
entertainment and diversion for you, the listeners, since the worthy
king Hkon, asked me, ignorant though I be, to provide some
entertainment through the following story. (Mttuls saga 1999: 58)
Elss saga:
en Robert aboti sneri, oc Hakon konungr son Hakons konungs lt
10
francia et germania
snua essi nrrnu bok yr til skemtanar. (Elis saga ok Rsamundu:
116; from DG 47 fol)
Abbot Robert translated and king Hkon Hkonarson ordered the
translation of this Old Norse book for your entertainment. (Our
translation)
Strengleikar:
En bok essor er hinn virulege hacon konungr let norrna or
volsko male ma hita lioa bok.
This book, which the esteemed King Hkon had translated into
Norse from the French language, may be called Book of Lais.
(Strengleikar 1979: 45; from DG 47 fol)
In addition to naming the commissioner and a translator in two of the
cases, these excerpts suggest that the translation was a written process,
based on and resulting in books. Note however that the oldest
manuscripts containing three of the texts are from the 15th and the 17th
century, which opens up for a discussion of the historical truth and the
cultural implications of the information given in the prologues/epilogues
(see e.g. Sverrir Tmasson 1988; Ralph OConnor 2009). That the 13th
century was a period characterised by many literary translations from
French is nonetheless undisputable. Other texts, such as Flors saga ok
Blankiflr, Parcevals saga (and Valvers ttr), Erex saga, Partalpa saga and
Flvents saga Frakkakonungs may have been translated in the same cultural
context, but we have no direct information of date and place of
translation nor commissioner.
In the prologue to ireks saga there is information about the sources,
but the prologue text is in many ways obscure, and there has been much
scholarly debate about how it should be understood. In the prologue it
is stated:
esse sagha er ein af eim strstum sghum er gerfuar hafa verit j
yverskri tunnghu er sagt er fr idreki kongi og hans kppum
11

Sigurdi Fabnis bana og Niflunghum Villtina monnum og morghum
andrum kngum og kappumm er koma vid essa sghu. (ireks saga
19051911: 1)
This story is one of the largest that has been produced in German
language. It is told of irekr and his heroes, Sigurr Ffnisbani and
Niflungar, of the men of Villcinus, and many other kings and heroes
are mentioned in this story.
But there is also mention of parts brought together by Danes, Swedes
and Norse people:
Daner og Sviar kunnu ath seigia hier af margar sgur enn sumt
hafa eir frt i kude sin er eir skemmta rikum monnum. morg
eru au kude kvedinn nu er fyrer longu voru ort epter essare
sghu. Norrner menn hafa samann frt nockurn part sghunnar,
enn sumt med kvedskap. ath er fyrst fra Sigurdi ath seigia
Fabnisbana Volshunghum og Niflhungum og Welent smid og hans
brodur Egli. fra Nidungi kongi og o ath nockut bregdist athkudi
vmm manna heiti edur athburde a er ei vndarligt suo margar
sghur sem esser hafa sagt enn o rijs hun nr af einu efni.
(ireks saga 19051911: 2)
Danes and Swedes can tell many stories about this, and some they
have used in their poetry with which they entertain powerful people.
Often those poems which are performed now have been composed
based on this story a long time ago. Norse people has gathered some
parts of the story, and some in poetry, this is first about Sigurr
Ffnisbani and Niflungar and Vlundr the smith and his brother
Egill, and about the king Niungr. And even if the forms of names
or events change a bit, it is not strange when they have told so many
stories, but still it is more or less the same.
12
francia et germania
The audience is mentioned when the German background is once again
stated:
esse sagha er samansett epter sgn ydskra manna, enn sumt af
eirra kudum er skemta skal rikumm monnum og fornort voro
egar epter tiindum sem seiger j essare sghu (ireks saga 1905
1911: 2)
This story is composed from stories told by German people, and
some of it from those poems that entertain powerful people, and was
made in the old days soon after the events told about in the story.
The prologue thus indicates that the compilation is formed from both
German 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 been
of great importance for the emerging literate vernacular. When the
translations from French and German appear they represent a new step in
this process. It is probably only when the Norse vernacular is well established as a written language that translations are made from languages that
do 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 from
translation to imitations, and hence, if talented poets were at hand, to
original works. In Germany, the creative period in the field of court
literature began in the twelfth century, England had to wait for
Chaucer, while Norway never really got beyond the stage of translation
and imitation. Iceland never had an original court literature; the family
sagas, 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 given
greater value than what is implied in Halvorsens words. They both played
an important role in the making of Norse culture, in Norway and Iceland.
13
Translations and literary systems

The main characteristic of both Strengleikar and ireks saga is thus that
they are primary translations, i.e. target-texts with known source-texts
in Old French, and at least relatively certain use of German sources.
This distinguishes them from secondary translations, i.e. texts that do
not claim direct service and relation to a specific source-text, but that
build upon and utilize known literary motifs, techniques and writing
strategies in the creation of a text.1 These terms, primary and secondary
translations, encompass and define a wide range of text-generating
activities, such as inter-lingual, intra-lingual and inter-semantic rewritings. It has been shown that these activities have a common
characteristic since they are all, albeit to various degrees, interpretations
of old material in the creation of something new (see e.g. Copeland 1991
and Eriksen 2010). If the corpus of translated riddarasgur is to be
defined based on such a broader conception of translation, it must also
incorporate stories with no known source-texts, but sharing thematic
and stylistic elements with the primary translations, such as Mrmanns
saga, Rmundar saga keisarasonar, Konrs saga keisarasonar and other
indigenous romances.2 That the translated and indigenous riddarasgur
were regarded as a more homogeneous literary whole in the medieval
period can be demonstrated by the fact that they tend to appear in the
same manuscripts, such as Holm Perg 6 4, Holm Perg 7 fol, AM 489
4 and AM 586 4.
Such a broad definition of translation has several implications for
our discussion of Old Norse literary tradition. First, it emphasizes the
fact that Old Norse literary production was influenced, directly or not,
1
2
14
The terms primary and secondary translation are introduced by Rita Copeland (see
e.g. 1991: 67; 9395).
It should be mentioned that the stylistic link between the translated and indigenous
riddarasgur has not been left uncommented in research see for example Kalinke
(1985). It is, however, still common to distinguish between them see for example
Rory Mc Turks 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 nature
of the medieval text-generating activities of translatio, as it is done here.
francia et germania
by European Latin and vernacular models, which were adapted to the
needs and requirements of the target-culture. The Old Norse literary
system, including translated literature, may thus be seen as a part of
the medieval pan-European literary polysystem,3 which includes Latin
and other vernacular literary systems. These had a dynamic and
symbiotic relationship to one another, which imposed constant literary
influence and adaptations. This terminology and conceptualising of
literature is convenient and appropriate when working with medieval
material, because of its generally fragmentary character and the lack
of known direct links between texts and manuscripts. Second, the
corpus of Old Norse translations from French and German would be
changed from incorporating only translations of known source-texts,
to including also texts alluding to and building upon Old French and
German literary material in general. Having said this, we would
emphasize 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 textgenerating process, that is significant to highlight. And even though
the focus of this book is two specific translations from French and
German, they reflect the translation of and allusion to both Latin
learned tradition and possibly other vernacular traditions, written and
oral.
The link and interplay between these literary systems may be
illustrated well by some explicit comments by Marie de France, one of
the 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 it
touches upon the writers literary competence when composing her lais,
some of which were translated into Old Norse and included in the
Strengleikar collection. Marie de France is claimed to have written three
texts, namely Lais, Fables and Espurgatoire Seint Patriz, on basis of a
signature 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: Oz, seignurs, ke dit Marie/Ki en sun tens pas ne soblie
3
The concept polysystem is introduced by Itamar Even-Zohar (see e.g. 1990; 2000).
15

Here, my lords, the words of Marie, who in her time does not neglect
her obligations (Marie de France 1999: 43); and in Espurgatoire (1. 2297
2300) it is said: Jo, Marie, aim is en memoire/Le livre de lEspurgatoire I,
Marie, have recorded for prosperity the book dealing with Purgatory
(Marie de France 1999: 17). As it is clear from the quotes, Marie de
France 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 comenai a penser/dalkune bone estoire faire/e de Latin en
Roamnz traitre/mais ne me fust guaires de pris/itant sensunt alter
entremis./Des lais pensai quoz aveie/[]/Plusurs en ai oz conter,/nes
vueil laissier ne oblir./Rime en ai e fait diti,/soventes feiz en ai veilli.
(Prologue ll. 2833, 3942)
For this reason I began to think of working on some good stories
and translating a Latin text into French, but this would scarcely have
been worthwhile, for others have undertaken a similar task. So I
thought of the lays which I have heard [] I myself have heard a
number of them and do not wish to overlook or neglect them. I have
put them into verse, made poems from them and worked on them
late into the night. (Marie de France 1999: 41)
In addition, in several of the lais it is mentioned that they are based on
Breton material, for example Guimar, ll. 1921, reads:
Je vaus raconteur, en peu de mots,/les contes dont je said suils sont
vrais,/les contes dont les Bretons ont tir leurs lais
I shall relate briefly to you stories that I know to be true and from
which the Bretons have composed their lays. (Marie de France 1999:
43)
By writing the Espurgatoire, Marie de France does what she mentions to
have considered, namely translating from Latin. The Fables, on the other
16
francia et germania
hand, are translated from English. Whoever Marie de France was, she
was a well-educated writer, who had the language skills, and the literary
and cultural competence to alternate and navigate between Latin, Old
French and English literary and oral traditions. Even though she is one
of the best-known medieval writers, Marie de Frances competence in
these languages and literary traditions was not exceptional. It was rather
characteristic of the cultural elite both on the Continent and in England.
This is supported by the existence of numerous manuscripts which
include texts in the three languages. One example of an English
manuscript is Harley 978. It includes both the Lais and the Fables by
Marie de Frances, which are in Old French, together with texts in Latin
and English (see Taylor 2002).
Another example of the symbiotic function of Latin and vernaculars
in one and the same manuscript is the Eadwine Psalter, from c. 1159,
which contains seven texts on one and the same page three Latin
versions of the psalms, an English version, a French version, a Latin
interlinear 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 in
manuscript culture, when books were hard to come by; it accorded
likewise with the doctrine that scripture was to be read at different
levels of meanings.
Even though the function of the various language versions may be
discussed, as well as the way such manuscripts were read and by whom,
all these examples serve to illustrate that Latin and vernacular literary
traditions, written and oral, were equally significant parts of the competence and horizon of understanding of many medieval writers and
scribes. The Latin and vernacular languages and literary traditions
constituted a dynamic literary polysystem. Primary and secondary
translations were central actors in the polysystem as a whole, as well as in
the separate literary sub-systems. The discussion of the two translations
17

Strengleikar and ireks saga in this book will be framed by this understanding of the Old Norse literary system as a whole, as dynamic and
constantly changing, and of translations as playing a central role within
this system. This role was not constant the status and function of Old
Norse translations changed from the 12th to the 15th century. However, the
stability lay in the perpetuity of the symbiosis between translations and
indigenous literary traditions, as well as between Old Norse, Latin and
other vernacular literary traditions.
This theoretical conceptualising of medieval literary traditions and
translations may be exemplified by a couple of examples from the Old
Norse world as well. The first example illustrates that sometimes Old
French language sources may have been used for the translations into
Old Norse, even though the material translated belongs to classical or
Latin learned tradition. This has been argued with regard to Trjumanna saga, which is traditionally viewed as a translation from Latin,
based on Dares Phrygius De excidio belli Troiani, dating to the time
between the fourth and the sixth century (see e.g. Wrth 2007: 165).
The translation is assumed to have been done in the beginning of the
13th century and conveys historical information about the Trojan wars.
The translator seems to have been well read and knowledgeable in the
literary material, but seems also to have adapted this material according
to his intention and audience. He does this both by keeping some of the
stylistic and rhetorical features of the original, which were parallel to
Icelandic ideals, and by changing others in order to comply better with
that same target literary context (Wrth 2007: 165). The saga exists in
two main versions an older and shorter one, which exists only in
younger manuscripts from the 17th century onwards, and a younger and
longer version, where material from Ilias Latina and Aeneid seems also
to be included.
The second example is based on the use of Arthurian material in
Latin, French and Old Norse traditions. All Old Norse manuscripts
containing the younger versions of Trjumanna saga include also Breta
sgur, a translation of Geoffrey of Monmouths Historia regum
Britanniae. The Latin source is majorly concerned with the story about
King Arthur, who is said to have had control over the Orkneys, Norway,
18
francia et germania
Gotland and Denmark. Even though the material about Arthur is
considerably shortened in Breta sgur, it is still there to provide a
thematic link to Old Norse translations of Arthurian romances. The
significance of the Arthurian material in Breta sgur varied in the
different manuscripts where it appears, for example Hauksbk and
Ormsbk (now lost). In Hauksbk, Breta sgur and Trjumanna saga
appear together with Icelandic historical texts, works on cosmology,
theology and philosophy, Icelandic family sagas and kings sagas, and
thus come across more as historical texts. In Ormsbk, on the other
hand, Arthurian material was found not only in Breta sgur, but also in
Erex saga, vens saga and Parcevals saga. No matter what purpose the
two manuscripts were to serve, they illustrate how the Arthurian stories
were commonly used, albeit in different ways, in Latin, Old French and
Old Norse sources.
The translation of Strengleikar

With this understanding of Old Norse literature as closely related to
Latin and other vernacular literary traditions, the focus now goes back
to Strengleikar.
Strengleikar is a collection of short stories, which is based mainly on
the lais of Marie de France, but also includes translations of several
anonymous Old French lais, as well as stories which are presumably
translations from Old French texts which are lost. The short stories are
called lj in Old Norse, lai in Old French, which may have been derived
from the Celtic laid. These were possibly meant to be accompanied by
musical instruments, and may thematically be related to Celtic folk
tradition (Tveitane 1972: 28).
The identity of Marie de France is a problematic issue, but one of
the best-known hypotheses is that she was a nun and was possibly
connected to the court of Henry II of England (11131189).4 Many
For a detailed survey of all the various hypotheses about the identity of Marie de
France and her authorship, see Burgess and Busby (1999).
19

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 seems
to have been done on the commission of king Hkon, possibly around
the mid-13th century. The Strengleikar collection as such is preserved in
one Norwegian manuscript only, DG 47 fol from c. 1270. This is a
rewriting of the original translation and includes the stories as listed in
Table 1, some of which are fragmentary.
Title
Forr!a
Guimar
Eskia
Equitan
Biscarlet
Laustik
Desire
Tidorel
Chetovel
Doun
Tveggia elskanda liod
Gurun
Milun
Geitarlauf
Strandar strengleikr
Leikara lio!
Janual
Jonet
Naboreis
Ricar hinn gamli
DG 47 fol
"#va$"#vb%%
"#vb%(&"vb"&
&"vb"(&)va%*
&)va%*&#vb"(
&#vb"(&+va'
&+va"*&'ra&*
&'ra&"%&va(&
%&vb"%&vb(&
%%ra"%%rb%"
%%rb%"%(rb"'
%(rb&*%)rb")
%)rb"$%$va%'
%$va(*%+ra"
%+ra&%+rb%'
%+va"%+vb%*
%+vb%*%+vb%'
%'va"(*vb&'
(*vb&'(%rb"%
(%rb"((%va&(
(%vb&)(%vb%+
Page in Strengleikar 1979

&'
""("
(&$%
$)+%
+)''
"*""*)
"*$"%%
"%)"("
"(&"(#
"(+")#
")'"$#
"$+"+"
"+%"'%
"')"''
&*"&*)
&*#&""
&"&&&#
&&'&($
&(#&)"
&)&&)#
Table 1. Strengleikar in DG 47 fol and in the edition of Cook and Tveitane

(1979).
20
francia et germania
The collection seems to have contained at least one more story, namely
Grelent, excerpts of which are today found in the fragment AM 666 b
4. This fragment was originally part of the DG 47 manuscript, but the
parchment was detached and used in the lining of a bishops mitra in
Sklholt in Iceland (Cook & Tveitane 1979: ix).
The main Old French source of Strengleikar is a collection of lais by
Marie de France, found in the manuscript Harley 978, from about 1250.
The manuscript contains in addition various types of texts in Latin, English
and French (Taylor 2002). The Norse translations include eleven of the
twelve Harley lais, including the Prologue, where Marie is mentioned as
the author of the whole collection. Ten of the stories in Strengleikar are not
found in the Harley manuscript; and for four of them we have no known
Old French original (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xvii). These are therefore
extremely important from the point of view of reception and transmission
of French literature. Five of the stories which are not in the Harley
manuscript appear in a Paris manuscript, traditionally called S, from c.
1300 (Nouvelles acquisitions franaises 1104). This manuscript contains
only lais, nine of which appear in the Harley manuscript as well. There are
thus in total fourteen stories that appear in both S and DG 47. And finally,
one of the stories in DG 47, Naboreis, is based on a lai appearing in a
third manuscript, Bodmer 82 (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xviii).
The manuscript evidence suggests that the nature, provenance and
origin of the collections of short stories in the Harley manuscript and
DG 47 may be discussed. For us, it is most significant to consider
whether Strengleikar was based on an existing Old French collection,
which was merely translated, or whether the translator also was
responsible for collecting the lais, which he then translated based on
written exemplars or from oral retellings. On the one hand, the Old
Norse prologue mentions a book that is translated by the king,
suggesting that the translator had a written exemplar of the whole
collection. On the other hand, the collection as a whole is not preserved
in any younger manuscripts, and some of the stories seem to have been
re-written and circulated on their own. Thus, Tidels saga is an Icelandic
rendering of the Norwegian Biscarletz li, while Gvimars saga is a
rewriting of Guimars li. The exact relationship between the latter two
21

texts is difficult to establish because the saga no longer exists, and is to
be found only in various indexes of Old Norse texts from various periods
(Kalinke 1979: 108109). Nonetheless, the existence of these two sagas
may suggest that individual stories were transmitted on their own. It is
therefore not implausible to imagine individual transmission of short
stories prior to their collection by the Old Norse translator, or the
persons behind DG 47 (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 were
indeed originally based on Celtic oral tradition. Anne Holtsmark suggests
that jongleurs were the main transmitters of Old French lais through
Europe. She argues that they introduced them to the Norwegian court,
and through a collaboration with Norse story-tellers the stories were
translated into Old Norse (Holtsmark 1959: 162163). Cook and Tveitane
are critical when it comes to the role of jongleurs in the translation process,
but they acknowledge that the stories may have been presented at the
Norwegian court by jongleurs (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xxvi).
The traditional hypothesis concerning the translation of the short
stories in Strengleikar is that it was done in writing, but in smaller groups,
possibly by different translators, presumably in the environment of the
royal court or at the Cistercian Lyse monastery near Bergen. Many such
stories were at some point gathered in a collection, which was then
copied in the manuscript DG 47 (Cook & Tveitane 1979: xxviixxviii).
German narratives, Nibelungs, Vlsungs

and irekr af Bern
There is little evidence of translations from German into Old Norse
during the Middle Ages and our knowledge about the literary contacts
between Norway and the German states in this period is limited. The
22
Cook and Tveitane state that the text behind the existing copy [] can hardly have
been in the form of one homogeneous exemplar. Although it might be conceivable
that such an exemplar existed at an earlier stage, it appears not very likely (1979: xxvi).
francia et germania
central work of interest is the ireks saga af Bern, a large, and often
challenging saga in its complexity. The saga was translated in the mid13th century, or most likely in the second half of this century. It is
preserved in one Norwegian manuscript from c. 1300 and in a number
of paper manuscripts from the 17th century based on medieval Icelandic
manuscripts (see manuscript descriptions below).
ireks saga poses a number of problems for modern scholarship. The
first is how to evaluate the work itself, as it consists of what must have been
a number of independent narratives that have been compiled into the work
we find in the medieval manuscript. There have been two major hypotheses
presented as to how the extant work was composed. Susanne KramarzBein has characterised them as the Norwegian hypothesis and the German
hypothesis 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: 34).6 The Norwegian hypothesis is more focused on
an oral tradition for the material about irekr, which was allegedly
introduced by German merchants in Bergen and subsequently connected
to the narratives about the Vlsungs before it was collected and composed
in the form it is now extant; this tradition is also referred to as the collector
and compilation hypothesis. The German hypothesis on the other hand,
suggests that German written material was translated, either from an already
extant compilation or from a number of written narratives in Middle Low
German which are now lost. It could consequently be labelled as the
translation hypothesis. The Old Norse manuscript tradition for ireks saga
is, however, in itself not clear, as the Norwegian, medieval manuscript
represents one redaction (or possibly two) and the two Icelandic
manuscripts 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 (Mb15). Of these two the scribes Mb2 and Mb3 are
of main interest as they are considered to have formed two redactions within
the manuscript, what is usually referred to as redactions Mb2 and Mb3. The
relation between the three redactions, Mb2, Mb3 and AB has been illustrated
well by Kramarz-Bein (2002: 2224).
6
See also Susanne Kramarz-Beins article in this book.
23

Theodore M. Anderssons remarks concerning the two versions of
Vilkinasaga found in Mb2 and Mb3 are of interest for the presentation
of the debate concerning the compilation and composition of the extant
ireks saga. He concludes:
Even more anomalous is the different placement of Vilkinasaga by
Mb2 and Mb3. Critics agree that the placement by Mb3 between
irekrs marriage and Valtaris marriage is awkward because it
involves introducing Velents ancestry (Vilkinus and Vai) after
Velents story has already been told. But Vilkinasaga is chiefly
concerned with the wooing stories of santrix and Attila. From the
larger structural perspective it is therefore appropriately located in
the marriage section. The Norse scribes understood the plan of the
book, but were faced with a dilemma; Vilkinasaga belongs both in
the section on Velents lineage, and in the marriage section. The
manuscript transmission shows that they failed to resolve their
dilemma. (Andersson 1986: 371)
This long passage is interesting as it casts a light not only on the dilemma
of the scribes, but also on the dilemma of the modern scholar.
Anderssons example is rather typical of the transmission of text-works
in a manuscript culture, where the individual manuscript and its text
witness reflects the work of, not a single author, but of a continuous line
of scribes and compilators. The placement of Vilkinasaga in itself,
therefore, places ireks saga in the highly literate manuscript culture of
the late 13th century.
ireks 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 German
sources. There are no known sources preserved in Germany for the saga,
but it is still obvious that there have been sources providing material in
Middle Low German for the translator or compilator (see e.g. KramarzBein 2002: 67). Today the German tradition of Dietrich is found in
tales from the 13th century, and the best known is probably the
Nibelungenlied from c. 1200. In German scholarship, therefore, the focus
has often been on the content of the now lost sources.
24
francia et germania
The prologue of ireks saga was mentioned above. Many of the
arguments for a German oral tradition are based on the information given
in this introductory text. The prologue is today only preserved in paper
manuscripts from the 17th century, but there is no reason to doubt that
these copies are based on a medieval exemplar; it was already stated by
Bertelsen that the prologue had influenced Oddr Snorrasons prologue
of his saga of lfr Tryggvason (Bertelsen 19051911: lv), i.e. in the
translation of this saga found in a manuscript from the early 14th century.
The prologues mentioning of various kinds of sources makes it relevant
to take a look at some examples of what most likely represents indigenous tradition.
Some of the characters who appear in ireks saga are mentioned in
Icelandic sources which are traditionally regarded to be based on original
Scandinavian oral traditions. The two central sources here are Vlsunga
saga and the poetic Edda. In the following some examples from these
sources will be presented and related to the parallel narratives found in
ireks saga as they illustrate very well the interaction between oral and
written Old Norse and German systems at the time.
Eddic poetry containing motifs and characters in ireks saga are found
only in one medieval manuscript, GKS 2365 4 (Codex Regius), dated to
c. 1270. The compilation of poems is, however, considered to be older,
probably from as early as 1240, while the individual poems seem to have
been written down in the decades around 1200 (see e.g. Lindblad 1954).
These poems treat the life of Sigurr Ffnisbani and the Vlsungs. In
connection with the first poem about Sigurr, Reginsml, an introduction in prose tells the story of how Sigurr was fostered by Reginn
Hreimarsson in the court of Hjlprekr. In this poem Sigurr collects the
horse Grani from Hjlprekrs herd of horses. Reginn tells him how he and
his brother Ffnir together with their father obtained a hoard of gold from
inn, Loki and Hnir as a compensation for their brother Otr who had
been killed by Loki. The gold is accompanied with a curse from the dwarf
Andvari that it will cause the death of two brothers and evil among noble
men. Reginn tells Sigurr how Ffnir killed their father to get hold of the
gold and how he kept it all to himself. In a further prose section it is related
how Sigurr received the sharp sword Gramr which Reginn had made for
25

him. Reginn incites Sigurr to set out to kill Ffnir, but Sigurr first of all
wishes to avenge his father by killing the sons of Hundingr.
The following poem, Ffnisml, is introduced by a prose section
referring back to Reginsml. Here Reginn continues to incite Sigurr to
attack Ffnir, and it is related how Sigurr digs a hole in the ground
where he awaits Ffnir and kills him. The first part of the poem proper
contains a conversation between the dying Ffnir and Sigurr. When
Ffnir is dead Reginn appears, and he asks Sigurr to fry the heart of his
brother while he himself lies down to rest. Sigurr cuts out the heart and
starts to fry it, but when he burns himself on the heart and puts his finger
in his mouth, he can understand the words spoken by some birds in a
nearby tree, that encourage him to kill Reginn. Sigurr follows their
advice, slays Reginn in his sleep and eats the fried heart himself. He loads
his horse Grani with the hoard of gold and prepares to leave. The birds
also tell Sigurr about the woman he meets in the following poem,
Sigrdrfuml, where he wakes Sigrdrfa from a sleep indulged by inn,
and where she introduces him to important knowledge. Sigrdrfuml
precedes a lacuna in the manuscript, and is today followed by Brot af
Sigurarqvio, which contains the tragic story of Sigurr and Gurn
Gikadttir, which eventually leads to the destruction of the Vlsungs.
At the end of Brot af Sigurarqvio there is a prose section providing
allegedly different traditions about the death of Sigurr. Here we find
what must be considered literary references to other narratives:
Hr er sagt essi qvio fr daua Sigurar, oc vicr hr sv til, sem
eir drpi hann ti. Enn sumir segia sv, at eir drpi hann inni
reccio sinni sofanda. Enn verscir menn segia sv, at eir drpi
hann ti scgi. Oc sv segir Gurnarqvio inni forno, at Sigurr
oc Gica synir hefi til ings riit, er hann var drepinn. Enn at
segia allir einnig, at eir svico hann tryg oc vgo at hnom liggianda
oc bnom. (Edda: 201)
This poem relates the death of Sigurr, and it is said that they [the
sons of Giki] killed him outside. But some say that they killed him
in bed when asleep. But German people say that they killed him in a
26
francia et germania
forest. And it is said in Gurnarqvia in forna that Sigurr and the
sons of Giki had gone to the ing when he was killed. But all say
the same thing, that they betrayed his confidence and slew him lying
down and unprepared. (Our translation)
This echoes the wording of the prologue to ireks saga discussed above
about a tradition carried by verscir menn German people, and the
evaluation that all are univocal, segia allir einnig. As the mention of Sigurr
being killed in bed while asleep refers to the story as it is found in
Vlsunga saga, it seems as if the compilator of Codex Regius has known
three different narratives about this event, the one he has just chosen,
one attributed to German traditions of the kind found in ireks saga and
finally one tradition reminding of Vlsunga saga.
But there are other clear differences between the Norse traditions
and the ireks saga, e.g. regarding the names of the main characters. In
Sigrdrfuml the name of the valkyrie is Sigrdrfa, but in Vlsunga saga
she is named Brynhildr Buladttir, which corresponds to Brynhildr in
ireks saga. Brynhildr in the eddic poems is also presented as the
daughter of Buli, and in the continuation of the cycle of eddic poems
treating the rise and fall of Sigurr and the Gikungs we are introduced
to Gurn Gikadttir, who corresponds to Grmhildr from ireks saga.
In many cases there are also different kin relations between the heroes
in the eddic cycle than in the saga.
irekr plays no significant role in the eddic poems. He appears only
in four instances, in the prose section known as Drp Niflunga, in the
prose placed between Gurnarqvia nnur and Gurnarqvia in rija,
and in two stanzas in the latter poem. The prose is obviously composed
in order to connect the two poems. The following poem, Gurnarqvia
nnur, is in this way presented as if Gurn was telling her story in poetic
form to irekr. It relates the killing of Sigurr, and how Gurn is
married to Atli.
A central narrative about some of the heroes from ireks saga which
has already been mentioned is the Vlsunga saga. This work is usually
dated to the second half of the 13th century, but it is today only extant in
one medieval manuscript, NKS 1824 b 4, dated to c. 14001425. The
27

story about Sigurr Ffnisbani and the Gikungar found in this saga in
many ways follows the same lines as that found in the eddic poetry, but
there are also some significant differences. It is not possible in this article
to give full justice to all the interesting relations between the heroic tales
of the eddic poems and Vlsunga saga on the one hand and ireks saga
on the other, but some important themes will be discussed shortly here.
In Reginsml it was related that Reginn made a sword for Sigurr
with which he first cut the smiths anvil, then killed Ffnir and finally
Reginn himself. The narrative in Vlsunga saga provides a rather different
version. Here Sigmundr Vlsungsson receives the sword in an Arthurian
way. An old man who is understood to be inn places the sword in a
log and says that the one who can draw it will receive it as a gift from
him. Sigmundr manages the feat without any effort, and carries the
sword in all his battles until he finally meets an old man with a spear,
allegedly inn, and breaks the sword on his spear. His wife keeps the
pieces of the sword and hands them to their son Sigurr who
subsequently has the smith Reginn make a new and sharp sword from
them with which he avenges his father. The description of how Sigurr
trials the sword is quite similar in the Codex Regius version and the one
found in Vlsunga saga, even if the latter has a longer introduction
reminding of a folk tale, where Reginn three times incites Sigurr to
establish himself as a warrior and nobleman, and subsequently, on the
third attempt and with the two parts of Sigmundrs sword manages to
produce the sharpest of swords, Gramr.
Sigurr hio i stediann ok klauf nidr i fotinn, ok brast eigi n
brottnade. Hann lofadi sverdit miok ok for til arinnar med ullarlagd
ok kastar i gegn straumi, ok tok i sundr, er hann bra vid sverdinu.
Geck Sigurdr a gladr heim. (Vlsunga saga 19061908: 37)
Sigurr struck the anvil and cut it down to the base, and it neither
bent nor broke. He praised the sword highly and went to the river
with a piece of wool, and throws it against the stream, and it was cut
in two when it drifted onto the sword. Sigurr went home happy.
(Our translation)
28
francia et germania
This description of how Sigurr tests the sword is very close to the one
found in Codex Regius which was presented above. And it diverges
radically from the way Sigurr receives the sword made by the dwarf
Mmir in ireks saga (I, 315316):
Nu slr hann honum itt suer, oc er Sigurr tecr ui suerinu [bregr
hann ui] oc syniz allgott uapn. oc nu reiir hann at suer sem harast
ma hann oc hgr mimi bana ho.
He now brings him a sword, and when Sigurr receives the sword
[he draws it] and thinks it is a very good weapon, and he now lifts
the sword and deliver a blow as hard as he can, and cuts Mmir to
death. (Our translation)
The sword Gramr is subsequently mentioned a number of times in the
saga, but the mythological dimensions found in Codex Regius or in the
Vlsunga saga are not present. It is a good and sharp sword, but it has no
connection to a mythic past as a gift from inn. Theodore Andersson
in his discussion of the relation between the Norse tradition of Sigurr
and the one found in ireks saga concludes:
Norse intervention in Niflunga saga and the prefatory story of Sigurd
is minimal. By and large, the translator uses the Norse form Sigurr
rather than the German Sigfrr, and he gives Sigurds horse and sword
the Norse names Grani and Gramr. His identification of Sigurds foster
father and the dragon as brothers and his inclusion of the birds advice
to Sigurd to kill his foster father also look like concessions to Norse
tradition [] But there is no evidence that he made substantive alterations in the German text before him. If this portion of the book is a fair
sample, we may judge that ireks saga is a reasonably faithful translation of the German original. (Andersson 1986: 357)
There are, thus, both differences and obvious connections between the
traditions of the Vlsungs in eddic poetry and Vlsunga saga on the one
hand and ireks saga on the other. The main issues that have been
29

extensively debated in Old Norse as well as Old German scholarship over
the last two centuries concern the common background in an oral
tradition, its German origin, and consequently the nature of the
Scandinavian traditions. Andersson states that [t]he standard view was
established by the early work of Gustav Storm and Henrik Bertelsen,
and to a surprising extent their view has weathered more than a century
without exciting a great deal of controversy (1986: 348). This is in many
ways correct, but Anderssons work itself, together with a new German
interest in the Norse translation of German material has over the last
decades generated new and interesting views.7
One question which has been at the centre of interest concerns the
oral traditions on which the translation is to some extent based, at least
according to the prologue.8 The Scandinavian tradition from the days of
Storm and Bertelsen has accepted the wording of the prologue, claiming
that the narrative is based on tales told by German merchants. There
have been variations as to the explanations of the arrival of the oral
traditions to Scandinavia, however, and as to how the tradition was
transformed into the Old Norse narrative. One scholarly tradition
claims that the German tales were spread in oral form in Norway and
that they were subsequently combined with more indigenous traditions
of Sigurr Ffnisbani in the form we find them in the written compilation formed in the mid-13th century as ireks saga af Bern. Another
position is that the German oral tradition was translated into Norse and
compiled in more or less undisturbed form in the written saga. A third
explanation takes into account the possibility that the German oral
tradition took a detour via England and mingled with Anglo-Saxon
tradition before it was introduced in Norway.
The other position, represented by e.g. Theodore Andersson, is to
claim that the narrative of irekr was more or less formed in writing in
German before it was translated into Norse. This position also seems to
gain support from Eyvind Fjeld Halvorsen, who in his discussion of the
7
30
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 Susanne
Kramarz-Bein and Robert Nedoma in this book.
See also the discussion by Susanne Kramarz-Bein in this book.
francia et germania
earliest translations of European works into Norse describes the style of
ireks saga and Karlamagns saga as follows:
The style of most parts of the Karlamagns saga and the ireks saga
is typical Translators prose, while the Flres saga ok Blankiflr has
a more rhetorical flavour. (Halvorsen 1959: 10)
Halvorsen goes on to treat the plausibility of the compilation as a
translation of oral traditions. He concludes:
This vast collection of tales mainly concerned with Dietrich of Bern
and his men is derived from German traditions. The saga, especially
the prologue, which is preserved only in Icelandic MSS, refers to
oral tales, and most scholars have concluded that the traditions were
written down, in Bergen or in Germany, by a Norwegian or an
Icelander, from stories told by Germans. This would be a very
strange thing indeed, in view of the fact that all other translations
are based on written sources. The collection of German popular
traditions by a foreigner in the 13th century sounds very unlikely.
(Halvorsen 1959: 24)
Halvorsen made a similar statement when he treated ireks saga in
Kulturhistoriskt lexikon fr nordisk medeltid (1958: cols. 7576). He has
been strongly supported by Andersson who states:
A final negative argument remains to be made. The idea of a Norwegian
author collecting German tales from Hanseatic merchants has exercised
a surprising fascination on scholars for over a hundred years. It is
surprising because such a mode of composition is quite unexampled in
Norse literature. It would seem on the face of it that very compelling
arguments would be necessary to make plausible such a protofolkloristic procedure in the Middle Ages. (Andersson 1986: 366)
Peter Hallberg (1982) presented results concerning chivalric influences
in fornaldarsgur where he included ireks saga. His conclusion was that
31

this saga diverged significantly from the rest of his corpus as to the use
of chivalric vocabulary. He started out by claiming:
By far most consistently adapted to the sphere of chivalry is ireks
saga, where the heathen, archaic and heroic world of the Edda has
been transposed into medieval kurteisi, very much as it appears in
Nibelungenlied. inn and other heathen gods or practices are never
referred to. (Hallberg 1982: 18)
It is interesting to note that Hallberg took for granted the state of ireks
saga as an original work in Old Norse. The saga is adapted to the sphere
of chivalry, and the heathen world of the Edda has been transposed into
the medieval world of kurteisi. Hallberg notes the clear parallel to Nibelungenlied, but does not follow up the implications. This is done by
Andersson in his article on ireks saga from 1986, where he concludes:
On the whole, the occurrences of riddari in ireks saga, especially the
preponderance of military contexts and the absence of associations
with courtly love, reflect German usage from the twelfth century and
not from 1250, the date usually assigned for the composition of the
saga. (Andersson 1986: 354)
His further conclusion is that the frequency of the word riddari in ireks
saga, rather than to implicate a composition based on verbatim dictation,
must be indicating that the text is translated by a Norwegian from a
German source where the particular use of the word riddari was already
established (Andersson 1986: 356). Andersson suggests that most of the
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&: santrix woos Oda, Attila conquers Hunland and woos Erka
The lineage and adventures of Velent
Velent-s son Vi!ga overcomes ,i!rekr
32
francia et germania
,i!rekr kills Ekka, joins forces with Fasold, and rescues Sistram
Heimir is outlawed
,ttleifr comes of age, joins ,i!rekr, and defeats Valtari
.mlungr, Hornbogi, Vildifer, and Herbrandr join ,i!rekr-s retinue
Warfare between Attila and santrix
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 sungr-s daughter Fallborg
Marriage of Sigur!r and Gunnarr
Adventure of Herburt and marriage to Hildr
Marriage of ,i!rekr, Fasold, and ,ttleifr
Mb%: Marriages of santrix and Attila
Marriage of Valtari
Adventures of ron and Apollonius
Marriage of Vi!ga and Bolfriana
Declining fortunes
Erminrkr exiles ,i!rekr
,i!rekr-s adventures with Attila
Battle of Gronsport
Death of Vildifer, Valtari, Nau!ungr, Ortvin,
Hjlprekr, Erpr, ,ether, lfr!r, Vi!ga and Erka
Death of Sigur!r
Death of Fasold and ,ttleifr
Death of Gunnarr, H/gni, Ro!ingeirr, etc.
Death of Sifka, Hildibrandr, Hera!, and Hertni!
Death of Attila
Death of Heimir
,i!rekr vanishes
Table 2. The structure of ireks saga of Bern, based on Theodore Anderssons

analysis (1986: 369370).

material in the prologue is based on a single German source (Andersson
1986: 361362).
Thomas Klein (1985) has suggested that the compilation ireks saga
af Bern is based on three stages in life, youth (Jugend), marriage (Heirat)
and death (Tod). This division of the compilation is supported by
Andersson (1986: 369370; see Table 2), who presents a brief outline of
the whole compilation. He points out that this provides a structure
reminding one of a life cycle with ancestry, birth, youthful adventure,
mature prowess, marriage and death, with a three-partite basic structure
of birth, marriage and death (1986: 371).
Another structural feature of the compilation is the introduction of
twelve heroes who form the court or hird around irekr. The heroes
are introduced at different stages in the compilation, and once they are
part of the narrative they tend to play the main role in longer stretches
of it. Kramarz-Bein (2002: 3255) has discussed the role of the heroes
in structuring the compilation. She notes for example that there is a
difference between the order of appearance of the heroes in Mb2 and the
order of presentation of them in Mb3/AB respectively.
There is a long scholarly debate as to whether ireks saga should be
classified as a fornaldarsaga or a translated riddarasaga. Kurt Schier (1970)
in his introduction to the Icelandic saga tradition, Sagaliteratur, places the
saga among the fornaldarsgur, but this has been disputed. Peter Hallberg
argues from a number of traits that ireks saga could just as well be
classified as a riddarasaga as a fornaldarsaga (see e.g. Hallberg 1982: 32).
Andersson comes to the conclusion that the saga should be referred to
neither of the two groups of texts:
It may seem otiose to contend that ireks saga has very little in common
with either fornaldarsaga or riddarasaga, since any reader will readily
appreciate the differences, but the point needs to be made for the record.
That ireks saga is in no sense a fornaldarsaga may be argued on
grounds of both structure and content. (Andersson 1986: 352)
Whatever the genre of the compilation, however, it must have been
formed in the same context as the riddarasgur,9 and its transmission in
34
francia et germania
Icelandic tradition has been in a similar context as the fornaldarsgur. It is
therefore profoundly interesting that it may represent a different cultural
influence from the riddarasgur but in the very same milieux, i.e. that we
could distinguish between a French influence on the vernacular literature,
in this book represented by Strengleikar, and a German influence that
today is only to be seen in ireks saga.
In Iceland, the compilation itself was most likely transmitted in the
manuscript tradition of the 14th to 16th centuries, even if the direct
evidence for such a transmission is today lost.10 The antiquarian
transcriptions of the redaction AB described below, however, indicates
that the saga was part of this tradition and formed according to new
interests in relation to fornaldarsgur and later romances.
The main Swedish work concerning irekr and his heroes is
Didrikskrnikan, which was translated from the Old Norse text, presumably
the 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 from
Old Norse to Old Swedish took place, and the exact time is hard to establish.
There are many indications, however, supporting a dating of the translation
in the 1450s or at the latest in the 1460s (see e.g. Henning 1970: 28).
Henning points out that there are examples of mentioning irekr in
Swedish sources before this time, as e.g. in Erikskrnikan (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 indicate
whether a Norwegian or Swedish text of the chronicle existed in Sweden
(2829). It should also be mentioned, in support of Hennings arguments,
that the extant manuscripts containing witnesses to the works referring to
irekr are from the 15th century or even later. In medieval manuscript
culture new information could easily be merged with an older work to make
it more updated. This is hinted already by Henning himself in relation to
Prosaiska krnikan, when he states:
9
See e.g. Henning (1970: 11) who states that it anses [] allmnt st i samband med
den ganska omfattande versttningsverksamheten under den norske kungen Hkon
Hkonssons regering (12171263).
10 For a description of the early modern transmission of the saga, see e.g. Voigt (1967:
464).
35

Fr dateringen av S Di r det faktum viktigt, att S Di citeras frst i
den interpolerade och icke i den ursprungliga versionen av PrK. D
detta verk frmodas ha tillkommit p initiativ av Karl Knutsson, vill
man grna ssom Klemming och Sthle frlgga ocks versttningen
av N Di till kretsen kring den litterrt intresserade kungen. (Henning
1970: 29)
If the translation, as Henning suggests, was initiated by king Karl
Knutsson, this would perhaps indicate the possible milieux where the
translation took place. Tentatively Henning proposes that the translation
was made in a monastery in Stockholm, as had previously been suggested
for Prosaiska krnikan (1970: 2930). A connection to the king Karl
Knutsson was already suggested by P.A. Munch, who in 1850 argued
that the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol had been moved to Sweden in 1449,
when Karl Knutsson was crowned in Trondheim (Munch 1850). This
was contended by Gustav Storm who had found in a manuscript from
Vadstena (now in the Uppsala University library with the signum C 564)
a list of books that seem to have belonged to the Norwegian bishop of
Bergen in the years 13051314, rni Sigursson, where there is mention
of a ireks saga (Storm 1880: 185). From this, Storm argued that the
translation was most likely done in the monastery in Vadstena. Henning
is reluctant to accept Storms arguments, however. He concludes:
Man kan sledes lika grna frmoda, att Mb hamnat i ett Stockholmskloster som i Vadstena. Mer n till en sdan frmodan kan
man dock ej strcka sig, d alla upplysningar saknas om Mb:s den,
innan Joh. Bureus 1636 gjorde sin avskrift och versttning av
Vilkinasagan i Mb (Isl. papp. 4:o nr 54). (Henning 1970: 31)
From this it can be stated that the Mb manuscript was most likely in
Sweden in the mid-15th century, either in Vadstena or in a monastery in
Stockholm. It was probably used as a source for the Swedish Didrikskrnikan. In his contribution to this book, Jon Gunnar Jrgensen
discusses further the implications of this transfer of an Old Norse work
to Swedish.
36
francia et germania
The manuscripts
As already mentioned, DG 47 fol. is the main manuscript which
contains Strengleikar. The manuscript dates to c. 1270 and as preserved
today, it consists of two parts, which are written by four scribes. Tveitane
(1972: 14) suggests that the two parts were first bound together by the
Benkestokk family, the 16th century owners of the manuscript. The two
fragments share, however, common characteristics which may indicate
that they were written at one and the same scribal center. Several places
of origin have been suggested for the manuscript, such as the royal
chancellery in Bergen or the Cistercian monastery Lyse Abbey, in
Hordaland, south-west Norway (Tveitane 1972: 26).
The first part of the manuscript, of which only two folios are extant
today, contains the end of lfs saga Tryggvasonar, an Old Norse translation of a lost Latin work by the Icelandic monk Oddr Snorrason. The
text exists in one more Norwegian manuscript which is slightly older
than DG 47, namely AM 310 4 from c. 123040, and a younger
Icelandic manuscript Holm Perg 18 4. Oddrs writing was deeply
indebted to other Norse historiographers, such as Theodoricus, who
wrote Historia de Antiquitate Regum Norwagiensium, and the writer of
grip af Nrges konunga sgum, as well as classical authors such as Virgil
(Andersson 2003: 116). He had literary connections to Gunnlaugr
Leifsson, a monk at ingeyrar monastery in Iceland, who also wrote a
Latin life of king lfr Tryggvason (Holtsmark 1974: 920).
The second part consists of four texts, and all of them are
fragmentary to various degrees. The first one is Pamphilus, a translation
of the Latin Pamphilus de amore, which was composed by an anonymous
author at the end of the twelfth century, probably in England or northern
France (Tveitane 1972: 28). The text is a drama, written in dialogue form
between Pamphilus, Galathea, the goddess Venus and an old woman
called Anus. It is a love story, with special emphasis on the moral features
of the main protagonist Pamphilus. The text became very popular and
was translated into many languages by the end of the 13th century (HolmOlsen 1940: 78). Because of this and because of the notes showing that
king Hkon Hkonarson was involved in the translation of two of the
37

other three texts in the same manuscript, Holm-Olsen (1940: 8) suggests
that the king may have commissioned the translation of Pamphilus as
well, even though there is no explicit statement to this effect. The part
of Pamphilus which is preserved corresponds to the first 490 verses of
the Latin original, which included in total 780 verses. The translation
seems to be relatively close (Holm-Olsen 1940: 9). The Old Norse
Pamphilus exists in this manuscript only. The text was edited by Ludvig
Holm-Olsen in 1940, including an introduction on the palaeography and
orthography, a facsimile representation and a transcription.
The second text in the main part of the manuscript is a Dialogue
between Courage and Fear, which is highly fragmentary and consists of
13 lines only. The dialogue was translated from Moralium dogma
philosophorum, a collection of moral philosophy, alluding to the pseudoSenecan De remediis fortuitorum. Moralium Dogma was written in the
middle of the twelfth century and was a very popular work in the whole
of Western Europe up to the Reformation. There is an extensive academic
debate about the identity of the author of the Latin work, and some
suggestions have been William of Conches, Walter of Chatillon or Alan
of Lille (Glorieux 1948; Gauthier 1951). The dialogue also appears, in a
slightly longer and different version, in Hauksbk, a major Icelandic
manuscript from the beginning of the 14th century. The Hauksbk version
of the dialogue includes a comment on the authorship of the Latin sourcetext: Bok ersa geri meistari Valltare af sambvr tveggia manna, ok rir hvarr
vi annan, af sinv efni hvarr This book was made by master Valltari
concerning a conversation between two persons, and they talk to each other,
each of his subject (Heilagra manna sgur: 446). Hauksbk also contains
texts on Icelandic and universal history, cosmology and theology. Even
though Haukr may not have been responsible for the whole manuscript,
the manuscript as a whole claims an authoritative position in Old Norse
literature and history within a European literary and historical polysystem.11
Hauksbk also contains a dialogue between Body and Soul. The two
dialogues are edited together under the title Vira likams ok salar by
Carl Richard Unger in an edition of Heilagra Manna Sgur from 1877.
11 For a recent tratment of Haukr and Hauksbk see Sverrir Jakobsson (2007).
38
francia et germania
The third text in the main part of DG 47 is Elss saga ok Rosamundar. This is a translation of the Old French chanson de geste Elye de
Saint-Gille. The Old French poem is from the twelfth century and is
preserved in one manuscript only, BnF fr. 25516 from the second half of
the 13th century. In addition to DG 47, the Old Norse saga is extant in
several Icelandic manuscripts: Holm perg 6 4 (14001425), AM 533 4
(14501500), Holm perg 7 fol (14501475) and AM 579 4 (14501475).
There are also three paper manuscripts, viz. AM 119a 8, Holm papp 17
4 and Holm papp 46 fol.12 Elss saga is edited by Eugine Klbing (1881).
A new edition with an English translation is also under development, to
be published by the Norwegian National Archives Series of Old Norse
texts. Even though Elss saga has received some attention in recent
research (Eriksen 2010, 2009 a and b), it is one of the least researched
sagas from the corpus of translated riddarasgur.
The rest of the manuscript is taken up by Strengleikar. The collection
has been edited several times, by Aalheiur Gumundsdttir (2006),
Cook and Tveitane (1979) and Keyser and Unger (1850). As already
mentioned, it also appears in a facsimile edition (Tveitane 1972). Unlike
the other three texts in the main part of DG 47, Strengleikar as a
collection, as well as the individual stories on their own, is one of the
most popular and researched texts from the riddarasgur. The articles in
this collection testify of this and provide a sample of research topics
elucidated by this source.
Keeping in mind the content of the main part of DG 47 fol, it may
be said that the manuscript corresponds well to many of the contemporary
Norwegian manuscripts and fragments. As mentioned above, many of
these contain translations, primary and secondary, such as e.g. Karlamagns
saga, Barlaams saga, ireks saga, Konungs Skuggsj, and the Old Norwegian
Homily Book. In addition, many other texts are assumed to have been
translated, 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, see
Blaisdell (1985). Blaisdell claims that AM 119a 8 and Holm papp 17 4 both derive
from Holm perg 7 fol, but that they are mutually independent, and that Holm papp
46 fol derives from Holm papp 17 4.
39

such as e.g. Alexander saga, Trjumanna saga, Breta sgur and Veraldar saga.
Thus, the texts in DG 47 should be read as part of this intensive and
highly-competent activity of making translations in 13th century Norway
and Iceland.
The manuscript stands out, however, from this context, as it is the
only preserved manuscript which contains four translations of four
different genres in one book. From this perspective, it provides an
explicitly coherent Old Norse reading of Latin and Old French literary
culture, and is a unique source when discussing book-culture, readership
and literary aspirations of 13th century Norwegian aristocracy. It is also a
wonderful example of the aspirations of Old Norse literary discourse to
raise its stature, by transferring and appropriating popular Latin and Old
French material.
The two parts of the manuscript are written by four hands altogether.
The lfs saga fragment is written by hand Otrd.13 Scribe Pamph/ Eliss
wrote Pamphilus, the fragment from the dialogue between Courage and
Fear, and Elss saga. Strengleikar is started by Str I, in the same column
where Pamph/Elis ends his work. Str II follows Str I in the middle of a
sentence, but on a new gathering, and writes the rest of the text. The
close cooperation between the scribes indicates a common place of origin
for their work, most probably at one and the same scribal center. Even
though the lfs saga fragment may originally have been planned as a
separate manuscript, it may still have been written at the same scribal
center, if judged by the consistent size, mise en page and mise en texte of
the two parts of the manuscript. The manuscript, with its two parts,
today consists of 8 gatherings, most of which are fragmentary. Table 3
indicates the position of the lacunas, and the distribution of the
gatherings, folios, and scribal hands with regard to each other.
The close cooperation between the scribes, and the overtly European
content of the manuscript, suggest a place of origin of considerable size,
a rich library and broad cultural competence. Both the royal chancellery
and the Cistercian Lyse abbey would have been such scribal centers.
13 The division of the different hands was originally suggested by Marius Hgstad
(1935) and is also followed by Tveitane (1972).
40
francia et germania
Part
Quire
Hand
Extent and state
" & : lfs

saga
Tryggvasonar
%r)v:
Pamphilus
$ra""%:
Dialogue
$ra"#va):
Elss saga
Otrd
fols. "&
Pamph/Elss
+ leaves;
Fols. (, ) and $ are
missing
&
fols. +"%:
Elss saga
Pamph/Elss
+ leaves;
The middle pair of
leaves is missing
"("#va):
Elss saga
Pamph/Elss
+ leaves;
fols. "(&";
Extant
"#va$: Strengleikar
"#va$&":
Str. I
&&&':
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
(%((:
Strengleikar
(%r(%v:
Str. II
+ leaves;
Fol. ( has been cut
out
+ leaves;
Only the outer pair
of leaves is extant
"
II
"
Contents
r
Table 3. Quires, folios and hands in DG 47 fol.

It is not certain, however, exactly how the manuscript was used and
by whom it was read. One potential answer to this question appears in the
first 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 illegible
sign has been deciphered to read herra Snara Aslaksson a mik (Tveitane
1972: 13). A man called Snare or Snara Aslaksson is known to have been
one of the leading men under king Hkon Magnsson (12991319). The
name appears in various letters from the period 12961319, which indicates
his gradual climb in the social hierarchy, from someone without a title to
a herra, a member of the council of state and a baron (Tveitane 1972: 14).
It is unknown where Snara lived, but various documents indicate connections to Stavanger, Vest Agder, a place called Hamre in Kvinesdal (which
has been interpreted by some as Hamar), and Huseby in Lista (which was
the royal estate). He thus seems to have been based in south-western
Norway. The correspondence, some of which took place between King
Hkon Magnsson of Norway and king Edward II of England, makes it
clear that Snara was a tradesman and owned a ship (Tveitane 1972: 14).
Thus, it may be assumed that the manuscript remained in the same part
of the country as it was written. If the manuscript was written in the royal
chancellery, then it remained within the same social class the secular
aristocracy. It should be emphasized, however, that it is uncertain whether
Snara Aslaksson owned the whole manuscript as we know it today. A
similar type of ownership and audience, i.e. secular aristocracy, is however
not implausible also for the second part of the manuscript.14
ireks saga is preserved in one medieval manuscript only, Holm perg
4 fol, dated to the end of the 13th century, c. 12751300 (ONP: I, 413).
This manuscript, however, today has a number of lacunae, which can in
some instances be complemented by material from two later paper
manuscripts (AM 178 fol (A) and AM 177 fol (B), see below).15 The text
found 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 manuscripts
we refer to Gdels catalogue for the Royal Library collection of Old Norse manuscripts
(1897).
42
francia et germania
103) suggested that the compilation could be divided into two redactions,
Mb1 (hands Mb12) and Mb2 (hands Mb35), with two redactors (hand
Mb2 and hand Mb3 respectively, see the discussion of the hands below).
It was argued by Storm (1880: 191) that the Mb codex has been part
of the library owned by the Bergen bishop rni Sigursson in the early
14th 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 suggested
that the codices Holm perg 4 fol and Holm perg 6 fol (containing the
Norwegian Barlaams saga ok Josaphats) were among the books arriving
in Sweden (Storm 1880: 190192; see also Gdel 1897: 2021). This has
been refuted by Bengt Henning, who argues that the Mb manuscript has
more likely been in the possession of the Franciscan monastery in
Stockholm in the 15th century (Henning 1970: 31). It has been more or
less accepted in later scholarship that Mb most likely has been the source
to the Swedish narrative about irekr, Didrikskrnikan. Whether this
translation or re-working of the narrative of irekr took place in the
Fransiscan monastery or in Vadstena is still a bone of contention. Most
scholars seem to agree, however, that the composition of the work took
place in mid-15th century Sweden (see e.g. Henning 1970: 3132).
As mentioned above, the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol is written by
five scribes, usually characterised as Mb15. The parts of the compilation
produced by the respective hands are presented in Table 4. The relation
between the five scribes has been thoroughly discussed by Bertelsen
(19051911: vviii). Here it suffices to note that Bertelsen considered
Mb2 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 and
chapter headings of this part of the manuscript (Bertelsen 19051911:
vi). The third scribe (Mb3), who is responsible for the chapter headings
in the rest of the codex (except the one at chapter 387, which is the work
of Mb4), is by Bertelsen suggested as the redactor for the part written by
Mb4, Mb5 and himself (Bertelsen 19051911: vi). Not only is Mb3,
according to Bertelsen, responsible for the redaction of this part of the
compilation, 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

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%
Table 4. Quires, folios and hands in Holm perg 4 fol.
quire 7), he has added a considerable amount of text. And to make the
preceding and subsequent paragraphs fit his addition, he has crossed out
with 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 on
page I: 28211 to page I: 350 (see Table 5). The deleted text is subsequently
rendered by Mb3 on fol. 56r (I: 322932512 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 Klund, the scribe can be
identified as Jn Erlendsson, one of the well-known scribes of the 17th
century (Klund 18891894: I, 144). rni Magnsson received the
manuscript on loan from the priest rni Jnsson in Hvtadalur, and
44
francia et germania
seems also to have had access to the exemplar, called Brratungubk,
probably lost in the fire in Copenhagen in 1728 (Klund 18891894: I,
145). rni Magnsson writes: hana feck eg af ormode Torfasyne, enn hann
af Helgu Magnussdottur i Brdra tungu [] Eg synde Sigurde Gudnasyne
essa bok 1704. og eckti hann hana, hveria hann til forna sied hafde hia Helgu
Magnussdottur I got it from rmur Torfason, and he got it from
Helga Magnsdttir in Brratunga [] I showed this book to Sigurur
Gunason in 1704 and he recognised it, and he had seen it a long time
ago at Helga Magnsdttirs place (Hndskriftfortegnelser: 45; our
translation). The paper manuscript AM 178 fol was used extensively to
fill lacunae in the Mb and referred to as A in Bertelsens edition (Bertelsen
19051911: xxi; see Table 5). This manuscript is of great importance
for our understanding of the compilation of ireks saga, as it contains
the prologue and large parts of the work which are not extant in the
medieval manuscript Holm perg 4 fol.
Another paper manuscript, AM 177 fol, dated to 16901691 (ONP:
I, 413), was referred to as B by Bertelsen (19051911, xixii) and used in
the variants. From rni Magnssons notes (Hndskriftfortegnelser: 44
45) we can conclude that this manuscript was copied from a medieval
manuscript called Eiags (by Bertelsen (19051911: xi) also referred to
as Austfjarabk), which was probably lost in the Copenhagen fire in 1728.
A third paper manuscript used by Bertelsen in his edition of ireks
saga is Holm papp 100 fol, which is described in the introduction
(Bertelsen 19051911: xiixvi) as C, but is not represented in the
variants. This manuscript is by Bertelsen characterised as a copy of two
exemplars, B and Mb, and where it is copied from Mb it also shares the
lacunae (Bertelsen 19051911: xiixiii). Bertelsen provides a comparison
of C and AB respectively in order to establish the stemmatic relations of
the three (Bertelsen 19051911: xivxvi). This manuscript has no
independent text critical value, but it is still of interest as it to some extent
illuminates the relation between the extant paper manuscripts and the
lost vellums.
A last, and for the transmission of material concerning irekr
interesting work, is the Swedish Didrikskrnikan (Sv), most likely a
translation, or rather re-writing, from the Norwegian work produced
45

Bertelsens outline
Ms.
Page in Bertelsen
Prologus
I: "#
,i!rekr-s ancestors and kin
I: +%"
,i!rekr-s childhood and adolescence
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 Erminrkr
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
About Herburt and Hildir, and
,i!rekr-s marriage
Mb%
II: %#(%
Mb%
II: (%$"
46
francia et germania
Mb%
A
Mb%
II: $"++"', '(&&"*)

II: ++"''(&"
II: "*)"*'
About Apollonius and Iron
Mb%
A
II: "*'"%##, "(&&(")+

II: "%##"(&&%
About Erminrkr and Sifka, and

,i!rekr-s escape
Mb%
II: ")+"#'
Attila-s and ,i!rekr-s battles with

Osantrix and Valdemar
Mb%
Mb(
II: "#'"+%+
II: "+%'"+#"&, "'"#
&*#"&, &"*&$&"+
II: "+#"%"'"#, &*#"&
&"*&$
Vilkinasaga, second redaction

About Valter and Hildigunde
A
,i!rekr-s failed attack on Erminrkr
Mb(
II: &"+&)+
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
II: %)+%$+
The death of Attila
Mb%
A
II: %#*"%%#(&%
II: %$'%#*"&, %#(&%%#)
The end of Helmer, Vidga and

,i!rekr
II: %#)%'(
Addition
Sv
II: %')%'+
Table 5. The outline of Bertelsens edition in relation to the used manuscripts

and page/line in the edition. MB15 = Holm perg 4 fol, hand 15; A = AM
178 fol; Sv = the Swedish version of the narrative about irekr. When Mb
and A run parallel in the edition Mb is placed above A on the page.
47

between 1434 and 1447 (see e.g. Storm 1874: 139144). Storm was the first
to 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 end
of the 15th or early 16th century by Hyltn-Cavallius (18501854: xli), and
Holm papp K 45 4, according to Hyltn-Cavallius from the first part of
the 16th century (18501854: xliii). These two manuscripts were used by
Hyltn-Cavallius in his edition of Didrikskrnikan (18501854), and also
provided the end of the narrative in Bertelsens edition of ireks saga af
Bern (19051911: 395398; see Table 5: Sv).
ireks saga has been edited a number of times. The earliest edition
was produced in Sweden in the early 18th century by Johan Peringskild
under the title Vilkina saga. This edition, with parallel Swedish and Latin
translations formed what may be seen as the end of the Gothicist interest
in Swedish historiography of the second half of the 17th century. It was
based on the manuscript Holm perg 4 fol, and there are a great number of
contemporary manuscripts in the Royal library in Stockholm to witness
the activities of the editor and his collaborators. The first modern edition
was published by Carl Richard Unger as Saga riks konungs af Bern in
1853. This was the standard edition until Henrik Bertelsen published his
critical edition with the title ireks saga af Bern in the years 19051911.
This is today the standard edition. The Swedish Didrikskrnikan was edited
by Gunnar Olof Hyltn-Cavallius in 18501854 under the somewhat misguided title Sagan om Didrik af Bern, of course based on the title of the Old
Norse work.
Late medieval manuscripts of Old Norse translated

literature
To recapitulate, the two texts which are the main focus in this book,
Strengleikar and ireks saga, were both translated into Old Norse in the
13th century, a period when the Old Norse literary system had a close
connection to Latin and other vernacular literary traditions. In addition,
translations seem to have had a primary and high-status position in this
48
francia et germania
literary system; they were highly influential upon local literary productions,
and in this way were central tools when the Old Norse language and
literature claimed participation in the pan-European literary polysystem.
Even though versions of Strengleikar and idreks saga are not
preserved in younger Norwegian or Icelandic manuscripts, it is relevant
to have a glance at the development in the position of Old Norse
translations from Latin and other vernaculars over time. This would
emphasise even more their significance for the development of Old
Norse literature during the 13th century and in general.
The Old Norse translations of Latin and vernacular material were
extensively copied, rewritten and re-used in new sagas, ballads and rmur
all the way up to the 19th and 20th centuries. Judging by the number of
preserved riddarasgur translated and indigenous in medieval and postmedieval Icelandic manuscripts, these stories formed the most popular
literary genre through time.
One of the main tendencies in the development of Old Norse manuscripts from the medieval to the early modern period is the change in their
content, from manuscripts containing more frequently one text, to
manuscripts containing collections of texts, which did not always have clear
or obvious thematic connection. There is a parallel development in Old
French manuscripts. The oldest Old French secular manuscripts most
often contain a single text and are copied by one scribe. In early 13th century
manuscripts start to contain several texts written by several scribes, which
may be seen as the beginning of commercial book production in French
(Busby 2002: 17). Such miscellanies would often include texts which
were traditionally classified as belonging to different genres saints lives
would, for example, appear in codices together with secular texts, such as
chansons de geste and romances.
A similar development is seen in Old Norse manuscript culture. In
the 13th century translated texts tend to appear alone or together with
other translations in a manuscript (e.g. Holm perg 4 fol or DG 47 fol),
while in the 14th and 15th centuries they start to occur together with
indigenous literature in miscellaneous manuscripts.
The most appropriate example from DG 47 fol and Holm perg 4
fol, which may illustrate the change in codicological context through
49

time is Elss saga, since it is preserved in several younger Icelandic
manuscripts: Holm perg 6 4 (14001425), AM 533 4 (14501500),
Holm perg 7 fol (14501475) and AM 579 4 (14501475). These four
manuscripts have all slightly different content and provenance, but they
are all collections of romances translated and indigenous and thus
examples of such miscellanies. Holm perg 6 4 includes today twelve
texts of originally more: eight translations, two of which from Latin,
the rest from Old French and four Icelandic romances. The order they
appear in today is: Amcus saga ok Amilus, Bevers saga, vens saga,
Parcevals saga, Valvers ttr, Mrmans saga, Flvents saga, Elss saga,
Konrs saga, jalar-Jns saga, Eiriks saga vfrla (only one leaf), Mttuls
saga, and Clrus saga.
AM 533 4 includes Mgus saga, Partalpa saga, Karls ttr vesla,
Stfa ttr sklds rarsonar, and Elss saga a mix of translated and
Icelandic romances and slendingasgur.
Holm perg 7 fol includes two translated and nine Icelandic
riddarasgur. The translated sagas are Elss saga and Bevers saga, and the
Icelandic works are Rmundar saga keisarasonar, Sigurar saga turnara,
Konrs saga keisarasonar, Ectors saga, Gibbons saga, Viktors saga ok Blvus,
Sigurar saga fts, Partalpa saga, and Adonias saga. Note that Partalpa
saga is sometimes regarded as a translation.
AM 579 4 includes Elss saga, Adonias saga, Rmundar saga, orsteins
saga vikingssonar, and Hektors saga. This is thus a collection of translated
and Icelandic romances and one fornaldarsaga. Other collections of riddarasgur that include fornaldarsgur are AM 343 a 4 and AM 471 4. Yet other
manuscripts combine Icelandic romances, fornaldarsgur and slendingasgur, such as for example AM 566 a and b fol, also called Eggertsbk. Part
a includes Sigrgars saga frkna, Grettis saga smundarsonar, Grettisfrsla,
Gsla saga Srssonar, and Harar saga Grmkelssonar; part b includes Mgus
saga jarls, Hermanns saga ok Jarlmanns, and orsteins saga vikingssonar.
These examples illustrate the general tendency characterising younger
Icelandic manuscripts to include texts that sometimes lack a clear,
obvious thematic connection, and belong to what are traditionally
regarded as different literary genres. Despite the miscellaneous content,
the mentioned manuscripts (and many others that mix the same genres)
50
francia et germania
do not generally include historical or religious texts. Such texts tend to
appear in separate manuscripts, which are nonetheless sometimes written
by the same scribes and in the same scribal milieux as the romance
manuscripts. Holm Perg 6 4 is for example mainly written by a scribe
who seems to have had a central function in the production of Bergsbk,
Holm perg 1 fol (Stefn Karlsson 1967: 82; Slay 1972: 22), a manuscript
containing lfs saga Tryggvasonar, Rekstefja and lfs drpa Tryggvasonar,
Lilja, Geisli, and lfs saga helga. Holm perg 7 fol is claimed to have been
written at Mruvellir fram, a church farm with a secular scribal center,
which was also the place of origin of AM 81 a fol, also called Sklholtsbk
yngsta (containing Sverris saga, Bglunga saga, and Hkonar saga
Hkonarsonar) and AM 243 a fol (Konungs Skuggsj) (Sanders 2000: 36
37). These examples suggest that Icelandic scribes in the late Middle Ages
distinguished between translated and indigenous romances, fornaldarsgur, and even sometimes slendingasgur, on the one hand, and historical
and religious writings on the other. The distinction may have been based
on a notion of different genres, different status, function and reception
of the texts, or a combination of these. Translations as such were however
not distinguished from indigenously produced texts, testifying that Old
Norse as language and literary system had a stronger and more
independent position in the 14th and 15th century, than in the 13th.
Translated literature was no longer transmitted in separate manuscripts
but was an internalised and integrated part of the literary system, with
the same status and premises for transmission as indigenous literature.
Conclusion
Strengleikar and ireks saga, translated from French and German
respectively, are two of the main texts that characterise Old Norse literary
tradition in the 13th century. They bear witness to the outward-looking
orientation of Old Norse literary interests during a period when the Old
Norse literary system was actively claiming participation in the European
literary polysystem. Translated literature was at this time distinguished
from indigenous literature because of its very nature of being translated.
51

Gradually, the translations introduced during this period became a more
integrated part of the Old Norse literary system. This development bears
witness to the constancy, but also to the dynamic and ever-changing
character of the link between Old Norse, Latin and other vernacular
literatures.
In the above, we have accounted for this development by paying closer
attention to the transmission of the two works and to some of the motives
from them, on a textual and manuscript level. The articles in this book
will further elaborate on certain issues that we have touched upon here
only briefly. The main aim of this introductory article was, however, not
to account for and introduce all the topics that are covered in the following
articles. Rather, the main aim was to convey and clarify a starting point:
to emphasise our broad understanding of translations and their central
role in the making of Old Norse literary culture, which occurred through
an active interplay with Latin, French and German literary traditions. The
literary traditions from Francia and Germania, both Latin and vernacular,
were thus the two main respondents and partipants in the dialogic making
of Old Norse literary culture. It is with this horizon of inquiry as a starting
point we now wish to turn to the detailed studies presented in this book.
52

2012 Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson 1 - Libre PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2012 Stefka Georgieva Eriksen and Karl G. Johansson 1 - Libre PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Francia et Germania Translations and the

Europeanisation of Old Norse Narratives

ranslations have in all times provided new impulses in literate

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Translations and literary systems

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

The translation of Strengleikar

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Page in Strengleikar 1979

Table 1. Strengleikar in DG 47 fol and in the edition of Cook and Tveitane

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

German narratives, Nibelungs, Vlsungs

See also Susanne Kramarz-Beins article in this book.

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Table 2. The structure of ireks saga of Bern, based on Theodore Anderssons

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Extent and state

" & : lfs

Table 3. Quires, folios and hands in DG 47 fol.

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

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

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

,i!rekr-s ancestors and kin

,i!rekr-s childhood and adolescence

Vilkinasaga, first redaction

,i!rekr fights Ekka and Fasold

About Detlev danski

,i!rekr becomes king and helps

,i!rekr helps Erminrkr

Sigur!r is born and grows up

King ,i!rekr holds a feast

King ,i!rekr-s march to

The weddings of Sigur!r and

II: $"++"', '(&&"*)

About Apollonius and Iron

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

About Erminrkr and Sifka, and

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

Vilkinasaga, second redaction

The death of Sigur!r

The death of Fasold and Detlev

Grimhildr-s marriage to Attila, and

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

,i!rekr regain his kingdom

,i!rekr-s further adventures and

The death of Attila

The end of Helmer, Vidga and

Table 5. The outline of Bertelsens edition in relation to the used manuscripts

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

Late medieval manuscripts of Old Norse translated

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson

stefka georgieva eriksen and karl g. johansson