This article was downloaded by: [Uniwersytet Warszawski]
On: 24 January 2014, At: 05:07
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of History

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shis20

Translations at the Court of Hákon
Hákonarson: a well planned and highly
selective programme

Liliane Irlenbusch-Reynard
Published online: 29 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Liliane Irlenbusch-Reynard (2011) Translations at the Court of Hákon
Hákonarson: a well planned and highly selective programme, Scandinavian Journal of History,
36:4, 387-405, DOI:

10.1080/03468755.2011.596403

To link to this article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2011.596403

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

Liliane Irlenbusch-Reynard

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON

HÁKONARSON

A well planned and highly selective programme

This article deals with the translations of Old French works completed at the court of Hákon
Hákonarson, king of Norway. The first one was probably completed in 1226 and some 40
followed: translations of epic poems, courtly romances and lais, adventure romances and a
fabliau. In all cases, we ought to speak of adaptations and not of word-for-word translations.

Together, these literary works form an outstanding corpus, elaborated mainly for didac-

tical purposes and in order to support Hákon Hákonarson’s project to build a monarchy à
l’européenne. For that, some literary works were selected and – in their adaptations – some
ethical and social values promoted while some others were not; and some great literary works
were intentionally ignored and remained untranslated.

Keywords 13th-century Norway, Hákon Hákonarson, Riddarasögur, transla-
tions, chivalry

In the 13th century, the chivalric literature of Western Europe was obviously of interest
to the North and especially in Norway and Iceland, as numerous translations from Old
French attest. The first one was probably completed in 1226 at the court of Hákon
Hákonarson, king of Norway: it was the translation of Thomas’s Tristan, executed by
a certain Brother Robert on the king’s initiative. Some 40 translations of Old French
works in verses followed – also completed at the court of Hákon Hákonarson. This is an
impressive corpus indeed which includes epic poems, courtly romances and lais, adven-
ture romances and a fabliau. For the first time, works in Old French were translated, and
this particular concern for French speaking literature will be limited to Hákon’s reign
while translations from other languages, mainly Latin, started earlier and continued
beyond this period.

1

Although generally quite faithful to the content of their originals,

none of these translations are word-for-word translations but rather adaptations into
prose, that is, texts clearly adapted to the cultural context intended to receive them.

2

These works completed at the court of Hákon Hákonarson form a well-planned

programme, a selection elaborated mainly for didactical purpose and reflecting King
Hákon’s political ambitions, a selection of texts intended to promote some values, and
excluding the literary works which were thought not to be fitting. Delivering neither

Scandinavian Journal of History Vol. 36, No. 4. September 2011, pp. 387–405
ISSN 0346-8755 print/ISSN 1502-7716 online © 2011 the Historical Associations
of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2011.596403

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

388

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

a clear nor a profitable message, Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette and Cligès by
Chrétien de Troyes and Eliduc attributed to Marie de France were hence consequently
and intentionally ignored. That is what I will try to demonstrate, presenting first the
general characteristics of the adaptations completed and the ethical and social values
they praised, and – taking these conclusions into account and in particular those based
on my own detailed studies of Erex saga and Ívens saga

3

– considering then the case of

these three works. As being ‘the masterpiece’ of the chivalric literature and illustrating
perfectly my proposal, being obviously controversial, I will more specifically study the
case of Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette. As the story of an adulterous love between a
queen and a knight, making of this knight – Lancelot – a new Tristan and a new Saviour,
and giving a rather miserable image of monarchy, Lancelot had – as I will argue – no
chance to achieve a Norse career. At the court of Hákon Hákonarson, the translators
were concerned with royal dignity and neither love nor women’s role in society was of
much interest for them, a clear antifeminism appearing even in some of their works.

Several studies have probed the links between Scandinavia and the western and

southern Europe during the Middle Ages, and in particular of Norway under the reign
of Hákon Hákonarson which appears to be an especially rich and interesting period in
the history of these relations. Likewise, the chivalric literature in Old French – and
its diffusion through Europe – has aroused the interest of many scholars, both philol-
ogists and historians, resulting in quite a large spectrum of pertinent analysis.

4

This

chivalric literature enjoyed great success: already in the second part of the 12th century,
translations of literary works in Old French were completed in Germany, soon to be
followed throughout Europe, in the Netherlands, in Norway, in Iceland, in Sweden, and
in England in particular. The translations completed at the court of Hákon Hákonarson
were a part of a European trend but remain nevertheless remarkable as it constitutes
such a large and varied corpus, and a very interesting one as a ‘part of a drive to make
the Norwegians a European people’ and as ‘a mirror which the king held up to the nobil-
ity, presenting them with an ideal which they should live up to’.

5

A study of what should

be called Hákon Hákonarson’s translations programme, focusing more specifically on
what appears to be its ‘great omissions’, thus appears particularly appropriate.

With certainty, 38 literary works in Old French have been adapted into Old Norse

during the reign of Hákon Hákonarson (1217–1263):

6

●

ten epic poems (Chansons de geste); among them eight different texts dealing with
the life of Charlemagne and his men which were compiled then – or possibly later –
into one saga, Karlamagnus saga,

7

plus Elie de Saint Gille (Elis saga ok Rósamundu), and

Floovent (Flóvents saga);

8

●

four courtly romances, namely Thomas’s Tristan (its adaptation is called Tristrams
saga ok Ísondar) and three Arthurian romances written by Chrétien de Troyes, Érec et
Énide (Erex saga), Yvain ou Le Chevalier au lion (Ívens saga), and Perceval ou Le Conte du
Graal (adapted in two texts, Parcevals saga and Valvers þáttr);

●

twenty-one lais; among them are eleven of the twelve lais attributed to Marie de
France, plus ten anonymous lais among which four for which no French source has
been preserved

9

(this collection of translated lais being called Strengleikar);

●

two adventure romances namely Partonopeus de Blois (Partalopa saga) and Floire et
Blancheflor (Flóres saga ok Blankiflúr);

●

one fabliau, Le mantel mautaillé (Möttuls saga).

10

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

389

Apart from Strengleikar, Elis saga ok Rósamundu and fragments of Flóres saga ok Blankiflúr,
and Karlamagnus saga, these adaptations, designated as riddarasögur – translated rid-
darasögur as there are also indigenous Icelandic riddarasögur – are preserved only in late
Icelandic copies (from the 15th to the 17th centuries). This, of course, raises a question:
are these copies accurate transcriptions of the translations made under Hákon’s reign?
This fundamental question has been discussed for several decades now and in particu-
lar by two scholars, Marianne Kalinke and Geraldine Barnes. According to Marianne
Kalinke, when comparing the translated riddarasögur and their sources, scholars have
generally been too confident in ascribing the modifications observed vis-à-vis the sources
to the translators and not to the later scribes. She also underlines the crucial question
of the reliability of the published editions of the manuscripts; when relying on defective
editions, scholars came to erroneous conclusions. But, as she notes, scholars can now
rely on some ‘exemplary’ new editions made during the last decades. There she points in
particular to Foster Blaisdell’s editions of Erex saga from 1965 and of Ívens saga from 1979,
and to Robert Cook’s and Mattias Tveitane’s edition of the Strengleikar from 1979.

11

In answering in particular to Marianne Kalinke’s critical appreciation of her arti-

cle ‘The Riddarasögur: A Medieval Exercise in Translation’,

12

Geraldine Barnes intends

‘to advocate a more positive attitude towards the riddarasögur manuscripts than that dis-
played by some earlier scholars’. She argues in particular that a comparative analysis of
narrative content and a comparative analysis of syntax and style do not have the same
level of requirement when comparing two manuscripts. Consequently, what appears to
be a difference of minor character for a scholar concerned with the narrative content
may be considered a major alteration for someone concerned with syntax and style.
A good case in point are the manuscripts of Ívens saga where the differences considered
as substantial variants between the manuscripts (two 15th-century manuscripts and one
dating from 1690) by Marianne Kalinke concern only ‘two minor textual points’.

13

Her

overall conclusion on the matter is that the alterations made by the later scribes are
generally of minor character and that the extant manuscripts do indeed preserve the
substance of the original adaptations.

14

The question if the extant manuscripts present reliable and accurate transcriptions

of the translations made under Hákon’s reign will probably remain a debated one, as
it has, of course, no absolutely certain answer. Moreover, the answer to this question
will depend on what the scholar is concerned with when studying these texts. For this
present study, which considers the whole corpus of adaptations – and not only one
single text and its source – and which is concerned only with the common and main
characteristics of these works, this question should be indeed of no real relevance. It is
difficult to imagine that different scribes working on different texts in different periods
would have made the same alterations.

15

The literary quality of these translations has also been debated. As this is not my

concern in this present study, I will content myself with quoting Vincent Almazan. He,
after emphasizing the difficult task that a translator in Norway at that time had to face
when trying to put poetry into prose and immersing himself into a rather different cul-
tural atmosphere than his own, declares: ‘if we compare the Norse texts to those we
know in French, we cannot but admire the work of those Norwegians [

. . . ] there is

none which, in my opinion, would deserve a lower description than good’.

16

Whatever their literary quality, the first characteristic to mention about these trans-

lations is that they are generally shorter than their sources. But the extent of the

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

390

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

abridgements varies greatly from one work to another, from very limited cutting, as
in Möttuls saga which follows the original text very closely apart from some abbrevia-
tions and omissions merely towards the end, to a reduction of almost 50% as in Erex
saga.

Principally, these texts are purged from the writer’s own comments, and detailed

descriptions and speeches are – if not omitted – substantially shortened. Action is indeed
privileged. The translators have generally chosen to be concise and to relate what hap-
pens, and especially the battles and heroic deeds of courageous knights. Consequently,
the translations of the epic poems are quite faithful to their originals while the romances
are by far more affected by these abbreviations and omissions. Indeed, these texts leave
out most of the sections which characterize them – and in particular in Chrétien’s
works – namely the descriptions concerning the heroes’ mental state, their feelings,
their personal deliberations and inner monologues, and their erotic experiences.

However, in spite of these abridgements, some additions also occur. A translator

would at times choose to add an explanation because he felt a word or an expression
could be difficult to understand for his specific audience, like the translator of Laüstic
who provides some information about what a nightingale is as this bird was unknown
in Norway.

17

On some occasions, a translator has decided to add some material to the

content of the work: Erex saga contains an extra epilogue on Erex’ career after his corona-
tion and that of his two sons with Evida, a type of ending similar to many Íslendingasögur,
while Equitans lióð got an ending as a moral lesson against avidity and injustice;

18

Möttuls

saga features a somewhat lengthy presentation of King Arthur emphasizing his many
virtues in introduction. When not just explaining a word or a sentence, the additions
have mainly a didactical and

/or a moral purpose.

19

The consequence of these modifications is a change in tone between the Norse ver-

sions of the romances and their sources.

20

The tone is much more moralistic and mostly

void of humour and satire, especially when it is at the expense of kingship. Indeed,
these texts willingly focus attention on regal duties and systematically avoid what in any
way could prejudice royal dignity. In the adaptation of Thomas’s Tristan, Brother Robert
shows clearly his concern for King Markis’s reputation.

21

In Ívens saga, Erex saga and

Parcevals saga, the adapters started abridging no sooner than the hero had left Arthur’s
court, giving in that way a greater role and stature to King Arthur than Chrétien actually
did.

22

In Yvain ou Le Chevalier au lion, Chrétien described King Arthur – even with a little

touch of irony – still as a good king. Nevertheless, his translator in Norway chose to
give a much more serious image of Arthur, without humour, and as Geraldine Barnes
noted, completely in line with the king’s ideal as praised in Konungs skuggsjá and in accor-
dance with Hákon’s own conception of monarchy.

23

In the Strengleikar, we notice also

the same concern for preserving royal dignity. In the adaptation of Equitan for example,
as Vincent Almazan noted, the translator, finding adultery too serious a sin for a king,
reduces Equitan’s status to that of a powerful man, and avoids the word ‘king’ in relation
with adultery.

24

Special mention should be made of Möttuls saga. This work is the only known adap-

tation of an Old French fabliau. Le Mantel mautaillé is a tale of a chastity test: a magic
mantle – which will fit only the ladies who had not betrayed theirs lovers or husbands –
is brought to Arthur’s court. One after one all the ladies are tested and fail. The issue
now is to find a lady who will pass the test and save the reputation of Arthur’s court.
Finally a lady is found in her bed as she was sick this day; she tries the mantle on and

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

391

it fits. This text, frivolous, comical and ironical, differs from the other works chosen
to be adapted in Norway in this period, and ‘surely does not aspire to the educative
purpose ascribed to the other works’.

25

As the adapter tells us at the beginning of his

work, he selected it at King Hákon’s request ‘til gamans ok skemtanar’: in order ‘to amuse
and entertain’.

26

The result is an amusing tale despite the fact that the original is princi-

pally an ironic one about Arthur and his court.

27

Indeed, although the adapter’s purpose

was not so much to instruct, his concern for preserving the dignity of Arthur and his
court is clear from the very beginning as the lengthy eulogy of King Arthur added as an
introduction to the work, as mentioned before, attested. Finally the amusement is at the
expense of the ladies of Arthur’s court, and of women in general.

28

As kingship is exempt from satire, so is knighthood. Knights are generally depicted

in a very favourable light in the adaptations, and any humour and irony at their expense –
as it willingly happens in Chrétien’s works in particular – is avoided. A clear example
of this general tendency is indeed, as Geraldine Barnes notes: ‘in Parcevals saga, where
Chrétien’s naïve and clumsy hero becomes a far more mature and competent knight,
Gauvain (Norse Valver) is presented in a more dignified light, and even the villain,
Clamadeus (Norse Klamadius) develops into a model of valour, wisdom, courtesy and
generosity’.

29

While the adaptations tend to give an idealized image of both kingship and chivalry,

and in particular of King Arthur and the knights belonging to his court, the importance
of women, of their role and of love – which characterizes the courtly literature includ-
ing Chrétien’s text – is clearly reduced. The adaptation of Érec et Énide is a convincing
example of this tendency. As an answer to Tristan’s legend, Chrétien de Troyes chose in
Érec et Énide to reconcile love and marriage, and – as the title suggests it – this tale is as
much about Énide as Érec. Significantly, the adapter gave another title to his work. His
story was a tale of Erex, Arthur’s eminent knight, his chivalric virtues and heroic deeds,
and not so much of Evida.

Furthermore, it did not say very much about love.

30

It is at Arthur’s court that

Érec will marry Énide, and love arises between them on the way there. Chrétien gives
us a quite touching image of this growing love in a description of almost 40 verses,
an evocation full of tenderness and eroticism.

31

The translator decided to omit the

episode altogether. In the same way, the 40 verses describing with clear erotic sug-
gestions Érec’s and Énide’s wedding night are reduced to four insignificant lines.

32

In

Chrétien’s romance, love between Érec and Énide grows even stronger after their mar-
riage, and this passion will lead Érec to neglect his chivalric duties as he cannot bear to be
without Énide. Érec is accused of recreantise and cowardice. This episode is crucial, lead-
ing the hero to embark, accompanied by Énide, on a dangerous journey – l’aventure –
in order to put his prowess on trial. This key-episode of almost two hundred verses
focusing on the duties of a knight and his attendant deep feelings is in the Norse version
reduced down to some 15 lines devoid of any dramatic and emotional dimension.

33

Finally, Érec’s reputation will be restored, and Érec’s and Énide’s love will mature.

Now, they are able to combine their deep love for each other with their social duties:
Érec is going to be king after his father’s death, Énide the queen by his side. While
Chrétien’s work deals in the first place with the challenge of reconciling the demands
of love and the requirements of the chivalric life, Erex saga is only concerned with the
knightly virtues and the importance of honour re-established.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

392

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, while Chrétien assigns a prominent role to

Énide, the adapter neglects her as much as possible. Most eulogies of her, praising her
beauty, her intelligence, courage and loyalty, and most descriptions of her feelings and
personal deliberations are omitted or drastically reduced.

34

This type of downsizing is

as we saw common to all adaptations, but in this case these omissions are so serious that
a main character dwindles into a minor one. In Érec et Énide, Chrétien pays homage to
womanhood. Érec et Énide is a work which not only offers a prominent role to a woman
as a beautiful and loyal wife but also as the wise partner, the one guiding the couple to
fulfilment and true happiness. It is also a work dedicating more than 150 verses to two
women confided in each other; Énide as the wise one and her cousin who – because of
her love – made the wrong choice, requiring her lover to leave the world together with
him. Significantly, this passage is drastically abridged in the translation and its message is
changed.

35

Obviously Chrétien’s adapter did not consider women of much interest, or

love of such importance, and love’s pleasure and torments were not – to him – a matter
worth debating.

We record the same tendency in all adaptations, and even a clear antifeminism in

some of them, as in Ívens saga in particular where, unlike Chrétien in his work, the
adapter depicts the heroine, Laudine, not as being in love with Yvain, but only as hard
to please, fickle and almost cynical. The same even added this remark about women’s
nature in general:

firir þui ath þat er flestra kuenna sidr [ok natt]urlíg [kyn]fylgía ath þat sem þeim vel
likar huort sem þat dugír. e(da)

. . . þa skal þat æ fram sem þeim er J hiarta. firir

þui verdr morgum vant vid ath sía kuenna huer[flyn]dí.

36

Significantly, as one of them, Laudine is not named in Ívens saga, but only referred to as
‘the lady’.

This antifeminism, or remarkable lack of concern for love and the undervaluation of

its role and function in the chivalric society, the censure of all erotic elements and a mor-
alizing undertone tend to indicate that the translators were very probably members of
the clergy.

37

Furthermore, the court of King Hákon was not the court of Champagne or

the court of the Plantagenêts where women played an active part in the intellectual life.

38

These texts have become sagas and are the results of a deliberate and systematic censure.
Their purpose was first of all instructive and the ideal praised more feudal than courtly.

39

Taking these conclusions into account, we turn to the two among the five romances

known as written by Chrétien de Troyes of which there is no trace or mentioning of
their translation at the court of Hákon Hákonarson, namely Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de
la charrette and Cligès, and the only of the twelve lais attributed to Marie de France of
which there is no translation traceable, that is, Eliduc, it appears clearly that these three
particular works are problematic texts.

40

Consequently, they were intentionally ignored.

That is what I will discuss now, focusing first and primarily on Lancelot, a story very likely
known in Scandinavia in the 13th century including the court of Hákon Hákonarson, as
Rudolf Simek has pointed out, ‘although with greatest probability there was never any
saga coming directly from it’.

41

Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette is the story of an adulterous love between Queen

Guenièvre –King Arthur’s wife – and the knight Lancelot, with the complete obedience

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

393

of Lancelot to his queen. At the beginning of the romance, Chrétien declares that he is
writing on command of Countess Marie of Champagne, and that she is responsible for
both the narrative material (matiere) and the interpretation (san).

42

Still, Chrétien did not

finish his work – Godefroy de Leigni did, apparently under Chrétien’s guidance. As we
understand from Érec et Énide, Yvain ou Le Chevalier au lion and Cligès, Chrétien considered
marriage to be ‘the ideal state for lovers’. Then, as Peter S. Noble continues: ‘It seems
possible therefore that the theme was not entirely to Chrétien’s liking, which would
explain his care in making clear the source of the plot and the interpretation and his
failure to finish it’.

43

Anyway, Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette has all the ingredients

of the other romances by the master and indeed is a work of exceptional quality.

The poem opens with the challenge addressed by Méléagant, son of the King of

Gorre, a country whence no one comes back. Méléagant declares to Arthur that he has
gained control over a part of his kingdom and that he was keeping Arthur’s subjects
captive. Then he kidnaps Queen Guenièvre without Arthur being capable of preventing
it. Gauvain starts off in search for her. But it will be Lancelot, an unknown knight, who
succeeds. Despite many terrible trials, motivated by his deep love for the queen, he
rescues her, frees Arthur’s subjects and finally kills Méléagant. But then, the romance
leaves us in suspense: will Lancelot and Guenièvre carry on with their love affair, or will
Lancelot now choose the courageous daughter of King Bademagu as they already call
each other ‘ami(e)’?

44

This romance raises questions, and the absence of a clear ending adds to its

complexity, to its ambiguity: what did Chrétien really mean?

Beyond the general nature of that romance as being problematical, three major

points appear as strong impediments for a possible Norse adaptation: firstly, the image
of monarchy delivered through King Arthur’s personality and the court around him;
secondly, the concept of love as the romance features it; and thirdly, the image given of
Lancelot as both a new Tristan and a new Saviour, a kind of Tristan with a Christ-like
dimension.

King Arthur and his court

Chrétien’s depiction is of a miserable court with a rather vulnerable king, uninformed
about his own realm. When Méléagant declares that a part of it has been conquered and
that many of Arthur’s subjects are being held captive, this fact seems to come as a total
surprise to Arthur. The king is apparently deeply affected, and he answers that he will
have to endure it if he cannot find a remedy for it.

45

When Keu, his seneschal, says that he

will leave his service, Arthur is desperate and sends the queen to ask Keu – on a bended
knee – to stay.

46

What is more, he will let the queen leave the court under the boastful

Keu’s protection, taking the obvious risk of her abduction. The brave knights of Arthur’s
court are described as terribly sad, but likewise as doing nothing. At last, Gauvain –
supposed to be the first among the braves – reacts, but the queen is already gone.

47

It

will be the obscure Lancelot who saves both the queen and Arthur’s kingdom. As Per
Nykrog puts it, ‘this Arthur is a bad king, pitiful and incompetent, and the members of
his court are no better’.

48

When we have in mind what was observed before, namely the high concern of the

translators in Norway for preserving royal dignity and their general tendency to give an
idealized image of kingship and of chivalry and in particular of Arthur and his knights,

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

394

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

we can then easily understand that Chrétien’s description of Arthur and his court in
Lancelot could not be appreciated. But the incompetence of Arthur and of his knights is
essential to the story of Lancelot as Chrétien wrote it. Consequently, an adaptation was
from the very start difficult to conceive.

The concept of love

The concept of love is the second difficulty that an eventual translator would have to face.
As noted, translators in 13th-century Norway had little interest in reflections about love,
its pleasures and torments and about women’s role in the chivalric world. Most proba-
bly, the task of adapting Chrétien’s Lancelot was not attractive to them. Furthermore, it
would have been cumbersome for a translator to retain the essence of the story without
neglecting his own values – and in particular his Scandinavian conception of honour.

In this romance, and seemingly with some irony, Chrétien depicts Lancelot’s love

for Guenièvre as unconditional, extreme and questionable, and her love for him as
extremely demanding. For her, Lancelot will accept to mount the cart of shame, and
he will cross the sword bridge, something nobody has ever done before, hurting him-
self very badly in this terribly perilous enterprise.

49

For her, he will also accept to fight

as badly as possible even if he is the greatest knight in the world.

50

Indeed, for her he

will suffer both physically and in his pride and honour. She commands and he obeys,
accepting pain and humiliation. Desperate, he even tries twice to kill himself.

51

There

is something pathetic about Lancelot, and he acts very differently from a typical hero
and especially from a saga hero. In the North, Lancelot as Chrétien depicts him must
have appeared as a fool, mostly ridiculous and incomprehensible. In that way, he is quite
different from Tristan.

Tristan never appears as pathetic and ridiculous. Yseult does not command per-

versely, and Tristan does not obey slavishly. Tristan and Yseult’s adulterous love is
induced by a love-potion, they put up with it, and their story is a sad one with a
tragic ending for both of them: these features very probably rendered this particular
romance more acceptable for the clerical environment concerned with translations at
the Norwegian court. As a story marked by tragedy and fate, something which also
characterized Old Norse literature, it had also a real chance to be appreciated there.

52

We also know that Hákon looked up to and actually had substantial contact with England
and the Plantagenêts’ court where Tristan’s romance was very popular – which was not
at all the case with Lancelot.

53

It is probable that Thomas himself wrote for King Henry II

and Queen Alienor and most likely the bulk of the French manuscripts came to Norway
from England.

54

The image given of Lancelot as both a new Tristan and
a new Saviour

Chrétien’s romance presents Lancelot as an exceptional knight and as the queen’s lover,
and ‘he is even given a Saviour’s role, as the predicted liberator of the prisoners in
Gorre’.

55

The association between adulterous love and the Saviour’s role must have been

felt as problematic in Norway. Indeed the Lancelot en prose cycle, an Old French trilogy
(the Lancelot proper, the Queste del Saint Graal and the Mort Artu), which dated between
1215 and 1235, became very popular. It ‘shifts the Messiah aspect to Lancelot’s son,

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

395

Galahad, who in the Queste del Saint Graal is expressly presented as the ‘new Christ’.

56

What is more, in this text, the affair between Lancelot and Guenièvre will eventually
lead to the destruction of the Round Table.

57

In Chrétien’s romance, it is love which motivates Lancelot’s departure for Gorre,

and it is the power of love that gives him the strength to triumph over all the obsta-
cles he meets. But then he appears to be charged with a far greater mission, that
is, to save mankind. In the land of Gorre, the captives knew that one day somebody
would come and free them, as it was known that one day a Messiah would come.
Everything becomes clear when Lancelot arrives at a churchyard and manages to raise
the lid of a tomb, something nobody had managed to do before. This signifies that he
is the one who will rescue and release the prisoners of the land of Gorre. And the
prophecy comes true. Lancelot’s character, as Chrétien depicts him, could be inter-
preted as provocative and impious. Already earlier in the text, when the hero finds a
comb belonging to Guenièvre, his way to adore the hairs remaining in her comb appears
almost blasphemous.

58

Later again, lying with his queen, ‘Lancelot behaves in a way

that is nearly blasphemous’, treating this physical experience ‘in a near religious way’.

59

For the translators of the court of Hákon, who, again, were most likely members of
the clergy, this association of profane and guilty love with the Christ-like dimension of
Lancelot’s character must have been difficult to accept. Lancelot was indeed a problem-
atic hero, and to them it must have appeared as an unnecessary challenge to make him a
suitable hero.

Cligès

As Chrétien’s Lancelot failed to be translated, so did Cligès. Concerning this work, we
must notice that it is the least Arthurian romance by Chrétien both because of its
geographical setting – Constantinople and Greece, while Arthur’s court, Britain and
Brittany play secondary role – and because of its limited use of the traditional Arthurian
themes;

60

it is also the least impressive romance by Chrétien, very probably written

as an anti-Tristan story, but not always convincing.

61

These facts have probably con-

tributed to its lack of success. But there is another and more convincing explanation for
its non-translation.

Cligès is the son of Alixandre, the eldest son of the Emperor of Greece and

Constantinople, and Soredamor, the sister of Gauvain. Following the death of the
Emperor, as Alixandre is supposed to have died on his sailing from Britain to Greece,
his younger brother Alis is crowned Emperor. When Alixandre finally returns, the two
brothers decide that Alis should keep the throne, while Alixandre would govern behind
the scene. Furthermore, it is determined that Alis will not marry and that Cligès will
inherit the throne after him. But, despite his promise, after Alixandre’s and Soredamor’s
death, Alis decides to marry Fénice, the daughter of the Emperor of Germany. Together
with Alis, Cligès comes to Cologne where he and Fénice meet and fall in love, but Alis
marries Fénice instead. Cligès follows the same pattern as the Tristan story: it begins
with the narration of the love story between Cligès’s parents and pursues with his love
for his uncle’s wife, Fénice. Like Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette, Cligès is a story
of an adulterous love even though Fénice manages, with the help of a magic potion, to
avoid physical consummation of her marriage with the emperor Alis in order to preserve
her virginity for Cligès. With the help of another magic potion, Fénice – apparently

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

396

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

dead – is taken away by Cligès from Alis who, finally, after being informed of their
betrayal, dies of rage, giving thus the opportunity to Cligès to succeed him and to marry
Fénice.

With this happy ending, the subterfuges used by Fénice against Alis appear to be fully

legitimated and her personality, at least slightly darkened by her calculations, completely
rehabilitated. But is it really so? Fénice managed to avoid acting as Yseult and Guenièvre,
but she deceived the man she married all the same. Indeed, as in Lancelot, Chrétien’s
message is not clear and his tone remains slightly ironic.

Furthermore, as D. D. R. Owen demonstrated, Chrétien made in Cligès – as in

Lancelot – a parodistic use of the Christian story. Like Lancelot has a Christ-like dimen-
sion, Fénice’s apparent death, her physical suffering when eminent doctors seek to prove
that she is not dead by torturing her, and then her apparent resurrection clearly point to
Christ’s destiny, too.

62

Eliduc

While there is no blasphemous aspect in Eliduc, the only lai attributed to Marie de France
not included in the Strengleikar collection, it is indeed interesting to note that it is the
story of an adulterous love with a happy ending as well. Eliduc is a brave knight, hap-
pily married with Guildeluec and a faithful servant of his lord, the king of Brittany.
But soon, his good fortune starts to raise envy and slander. Now on bad terms with his
lord, he has to quit the court. Eliduc chooses to leave Brittany for a while for England
while his wife remains at home. There, in South England, having rescued an old king
besieged in his city and crushed his enemies, he wins that king’s favour and enters his
service. The old king had no male heir but a beautiful daughter, Guilliadun, and Eliduc
and Guilliadun fall in love. Unable to live without her, Eliduc decides then – clandes-
tinely and concealing that he is already married – to take her away from her father.
Back in Brittany, he finally manages to marry Guilliadun, as his wife loves him so dearly
that she becomes a nun in order to allow him to live together with Guilliadun. Indeed,
Eliduc is the story of a man betraying his wife, his mistress and her father, his lord,
and who finally marries his mistress because his wife is strong enough to consent to
withdraw.

As Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la charrette and Cligès were a priori not regarded as suit-

able for the translators at the court of Hákon, Eliduc was also a controversial tale to
them, especially because of the role assigned to women. Eliduc is in fact the story of two
women, as Marie notes it at the beginning of her narrative,

63

and the image given of them

stands in clear opposition to the weakness of the male hero and indeed in clear opposi-
tion to the one proposed by the other translations done at the same court. Like Lancelot,
Eliduc is a character who lets his feelings guide his life. Love crushes their reason and
dignity and makes them pathetic. While Eliduc is depicted as weeping and overwhelmed
with grief when he believes that his mistress is dead, his wife has the strength to grant
him compassion and to act. With her help, Guilliadun awakens.

64

Thereafter, it is she

again who decides and acts; she will take the nun’s veil and the others will marry.

65

In this lai, Marie de France pays homage to women and praises their strength, turn-
ing the male hero of the story into the weaker part. Eliduc could hardly become a
Norseman’s hero.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

397

Conclusions

The translations completed under Hákon Hákonarson’s reign were not chosen ran-
domly – they form a carefully planned and highly selective programme. Some literary
works were selected, some were intentionally ignored and remained not translated;
some values were promoted and some others were not.

Chrétien’s Lancelot in particular did not fit Hákon Hákonarson’s great translations

programme as it is a very difficult text to apprehend. It had no clear message and
questionable heroes like Lancelot himself, but also Arthur as a ridiculous king, while
Guenièvre appeared as quite perverse in her way to demand complete submission from
Lancelot, and eventually Gauvain as a rather ordinary knight. To turn Chrétien’s Lancelot
into a good and instructive story for the Norwegian court must have seemed an impossi-
ble task without crafting a completely new story. Neither the image of the monarchy nor
the concept of love and Lancelot’s character and behaviour conformed to its mentality.

Although Cligès and Eliduc are overall less provocative works, they must have been

considered also at the Norwegian court as embarrassing stories. By depicting an adul-
terous woman, Fénice, suffering a Christ-like Passion, and a rather weak hero, Eliduc,
rescued by his wife’s generous love they sounded embarrassing and very probably quite
uninteresting stories to a Norse audience. For this reason, Lancelot ou Le Chevalier de la
charrette, Cligès and Eliduc had no chance to become popular in the Norse world.

Notes

1

As Knud Togeby (‘L’influence de la literature française’, 371) noted: ‘Si l’on jette
un coup d’œil en arrière, on constate que la mode de la traduction de textes français
a été très courte, et qu’elle n’a même pas duré pendant tout le règne de Hákon
Hákonarson, mais seulement depuis 1225 environ jusqu’à 1250 environ’. Interesting
to note is also the fact that only very few texts adapted from another language than
Old French can – possibly – be related to Hákon’s reign. It is the case of Pamphilus,
Trójumanna saga, Breta sögur and Barlaams saga ok Josaphats: all of them are transla-
tions of Latin texts. Breta sögur could have been translated before, and in Iceland
(cf. in particular the recent article by Marianne Kalinke, ‘The Arthurian Legend in
Breta sögur’. It is actually the son of Hákon, King Hákon the Young (king since 1240
together with his father; died in 1257) who is supposed to have performed (or at
least to have initiated) the translation of the religious tale Barlaams saga ok Josaphats
(cf. Rindal, ‘Barlaams saga ok Josaphats’). Another adaptation not from Old French –
this time from German – may also have been accomplished during Hákon’s reign,
namely Þiðreks saga af Bern, but very little is known about this compilation: Scholars
are unsure about its sources (oral tales and

/or written sources?) and disagree about

its dating (as early as the end of the 12th century or as late as the middle of the 13th
century?). In this article, I will be concerned only with the translations from Old
French which are indeed the specificity of Hákon’s reign.

2

As indeed both terms – ‘translations’ and ‘adaptations’ – can be used interchange-
ably for these works (as it is generally the case with medieval translations of secular
texts, a medieval translation being, according to our modern criteria, more or less
always an adaptation ), I chose in this paper to use both without any further distinc-
tion. In the same way, referring to the ‘authors’ of these works, I will use without
discrimination both terms, ‘translators’ and ‘adapters’.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

398

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

3

Reynard, ‘Når en roman av Chrétien de Troyes blir til en norrøn saga’ and ‘Fra Érec
et Énide til Erex saga’.

4

Initially, two conferences stimulated research and resulted in several interesting
articles: Les relations littéraires franco-scandinaves au Moyen Age held at Liège in 1972
and Les sagas de chevaliers (Riddarasögur) at Toulon in 1982 (cf. the list of refer-
ences). Among individual studies of interest: Meißner, Die Strengleikar; Leach,
Angevin Britain and Scandinavia; Loomis, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages; Barnes,
‘The riddarasögur. A Literary and Social Analysis’; Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur and
Mediæval European Literature’; Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur. A Medieval Exercise in
Translation’; Barnes, ‘Arthurian Chivalry in Old Norse’; Kalinke, ‘Norse Romance
(Riddarasögur)’; Almazan, ‘Translations at the Castilian and Norwegian Courts in the
Thirteenth Century’; Nykrog, Chrétien de Troyes; Skårup, ‘Traductions norroises de
textes français médiévaux’; Bengtsson, Den höviska kulturen i Norden; Matyushina,
‘On the Imagery and Style of riddarasögur’; and Lacy and Grimbert, ‘A Companion to
Chrétien de Troyes’.

5

Fidjestøl, ‘Romantic Reading at the Court of Hákon Hákonarson’. Full quotations:
‘Collectively this literary contribution can be seen as part of a drive to make the
Norwegians a European people’ (ibid., 363); ‘In the reign of Hákon Hákonarson
Norway was not a feudal society, and in the full sense of the term it never became
one. But it was moving in that direction, and it was probably King Hákon’s aim.
Under King Magnús the lendir menn became ‘barons’ and the skutilsveinar ‘knights’.
Against this background we may also be bold enough to see the imported stories of
chivalry as a mirror which the king held up to the nobility, presenting them with an
ideal which they should live up to if they were to play their intended part in society.
And on the way the romances helped to provide an ideological justification for the
class-society that was in process of formation’ (ibid., 365).

6

‘Certainty’ in the sense of ‘very general consensus among scholars about it’. To this
list of 38 works, two could be possibly added but as the probability that they have
been adapted during Hákon’s reign is clearly less high, I prefer not to consider them
as a part of Hákon’s programme. These works are a translation of a lost version of
the epic poem Boeve d’Haumtone (Bevers saga), made under Hákon or later during the
13th century and, derived from the epic poem Renaud de Montauban or Les Quatres fils
Aymon, an Icelandic work in its preserved form (called Mágus saga jarls), but possibly
based on a lost translation contemporary to Hákon.

7

The works adapted then are (following the order in ten branches of Unger’s 1860
edition of Karlamagnus saga, still the only complete edition of this collection of texts):
Chanson de Basin, Chevalerie d’Ogier de Danemarche, Chanson d’Aspremont, Chanson
des Saxons, Chanson d’Otinel, Pèlerinage de Charlemagne, Chanson de Roland, Moniage
Guillaume. Whether these adaptations have been assembled as one saga, Karlamagnus
saga, already then or only later is uncertain. Some revisions surely date later, like in
particular the addition of a translation of an English adaptation of the French epic
Doon de la Roche and of a new text about Charlemagne’s death derived from Vincent
de Beauvais’ Speculum historiale (cf. Skårup, ‘Karlamagnus saga’).

8

Noteworthy: the source of Flóvents saga is not the Chanson de Floovent, but another
French epic poem now lost whose contents are preserved in the Italian work Reali di
Francia (Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur and Mediæval European Literature’, 141).

9

The four lais for which no French source has been preserved are (all titles given
below are following the order of the Norwegian MS): Gurun, Strandar lióð (‘Le

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

399

lai de la plage’), Ricar hinn gamli (‘Richard le Vieux’), and Deux amants II (so-called
because one of Marie’s lais carries already the title ‘Deux amants’ and because the
beginning of the work is missing, but the title ‘Deux amants’ is given at the end,
cf. Cook, ‘Strengleikar’, 104–5. The lais attributed to Marie de France are:
Guigemar, Le Freisne, Equitan, Bisclavret, Laüstic, Chaitivel, Deus amanz, Milun,
Chevrefoil, Lanval, Yonec. The other lais are: Désiré, Tidorel, Doon, Lai du Lecheor,
Nabaret, Graelent.

10

Also known as Le lai du cort mantel. This text has been classified both as a fabliau
and as a lai for belonging to both genres, a sort of lai with a clear fabliau’s tone, a
roguish one.

11

Kalinke, ‘Scribes, Editors, and the riddarasögur’; Kalinke, ‘Norse Romance
(Riddarasögur)’, in particular 332–40 and 342. Foster Blaisdell’s editions of Erex saga
and Ívens saga are the editions I relied on for my previous studies on these two works
in 2004, and for this present study.

12

Kalinke, ‘Scribes, Editors, and the riddarasögur’, 40–4; Kalinke, ‘Norse Romance
(Riddarasögur)’, 339). In her article, ‘The riddarasögur: A Medieval Exercise in
Translation’, Geraldine Barnes analyses the technique of translation in some rid-
darasögur, and in particular she presents the results of her study of some passages
of Flóres saga ok Blankiflúr for which Norwegian and later Icelandic MSS are available
and consequently allow a comparison. Quoting her conclusion: ‘For purposes of lit-
erary and historical analysis, at least, it seems safe to assume that in their present
state the riddarasögur MSS accurately represent the material translated, abbrevi-
ated or amplified by Brother Robert and his nameless colleagues’ (ibid., 438).
Marianne Kalinke qualified this conclusion as ‘sanguine’ (‘Scribes, Editors, and the
riddarasögur’, 40) and argued later – referring to this same article – that ‘conclu-
sions about manuscripts are valid only insofar as 19th-century editorial judgment
is not flawed. The passages selected from Ívens saga for comparison with Yvain are
based only on the text published by Kölbing, for example, and thus the author could
not take into account significant readings from Stockholm Pap. fol. no. 46 for the
simple reason that Kölbing chose to ignore the manuscript’. Fortunately, Foster
Blaisdell’s edition takes this manuscript into account. (Kalinke, ‘Norse Romance
[Riddarasögur]’, 339 and 336.)

13

Barnes, ‘Some Current Issues in riddarasögur Research’, 75–6, quotations 76.

14

Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur. A Medieval Exercise in Translation’, 438; ‘Arthurian
Chivalry in Old Norse’, 58; and ‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’, 531.

15

Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur. A Medieval Exercise in Translation’, 413.

16

Almazan, ‘Translations at the Castilian and Norwegian Courts in the Thirteenth
Century’, 229.

17

Ibid., 224; Laustiks lioð, §1.

18

Barnes, ‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’, 532.

19

About omissions and additions, cf. in particular Almazan, ‘Translations at the
Castilian and Norwegian Courts’.

20

As noted before, the epics remain more faithful to their originals. As Geraldine
Barnes (‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’, 532) puts it: ‘Elis saga and Karlamagnús
saga treat French epic with due gusto, but the Norse versions of the romances,
particularly of romans courtois, differ radically in tone from their sources’.

21

Schach, ‘The Style and Structure of Tristrams saga’, 75–6. Schach refers in particular
to the episode in ch. 49 when King Markis has to allow a rote-playing Irish baron to

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

400

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

take the queen away because – as a noble king – he may not break a promise made in
the presence of the court.

22

Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur and Mediæval European Literature’, 147–8. After men-
tioning the prominence given to Arthur in that way, Barnes adds: ‘on more than one
occasion the translator endows him with a stature, dignity and power notably lacking
in the original’.

23

Barnes, ‘The riddarasögur: A Literary and Social Analysis’, 240. Regarding the
description of Arthur in Yvain ou Le Chevalier au Lion, Barnes refers to Frappier (Le
Roman Breton, 68) who wrote that Arthur is presented as ‘une majesté débonnaire
tracée d’un crayon légèrement ironique et irrespectueux, mais en fin de compte
très amical’. Cf. Reynard, ‘Når en roman av Chrétien de Troyes blir til en norrøn
saga’, 255.

24

Almazan, ‘Translations at the Castilian and Norwegian Courts in the Thirteenth
Century’, 222.

25

Simek, ‘Möttuls saga’, 427.

26

Möttuls saga, ch. 1. Note: Marianne Kalinke translated ‘til gamans ok skemtanar’ as
‘entertainment and diversion’, ibid., 6–7.

27

Cf. in particular Friesen, ‘“Le Cort Mantel” and “Möttuls saga”’.

28

Barnes, ‘Some Current Issues in riddarasögur Research’, 73–88, particularly 83–5.
For Geraldine Barnes, ‘Möttuls saga can be read as a piece of “amusing” but “instruc-
tive” antifeminism’. She is responding here in particular to Marianne Kalinke who
argues that the portrait of Arthur is ironical and the tale, a satire of Arthur’s court,
and who – more generally – in the debated question ‘didacticism versus entertain-
ment’ contests the didactic value and purpose of the translated riddarasögur. About
Möttuls saga and Kalinke’s meaning cf. in particular Kalinke, ‘Amplification in Möttuls
saga’, 239–55; ‘The tale of the mantle is a travesty; through the interpolation of a
laudatory description of Arthur the author resorted to irony to enhance the comic
spirit pervading the plot’ (quotation ibid., 254). Although the didactic value and pur-
pose of the translated riddarasögur is clear, I would argue that Möttuls saga is indeed
apart and I will not go so far to speak of ‘instructive antifeminism’, but prefer to call
it ‘amusement at the expense of women’ in this case (I think the matter is different
for example in Ívens saga, as I will argue later).

29

Barnes, ‘Arthurian Chivalry in Old Norse’, 50–102, quotation 74–5.

30

For the characteristics of the adaption of Érec et Énide into Old Norse, I refer to my
presentation Reynard, ‘Fra Érec et Énide til Erex saga’.

31

Érec et Énide, verses 1479–1516.

32

Ibid., verses 2069–108; Erex saga Artuskappa, ch. 6 (MS A)

/5 (MS B). In the edition

I refer to, namely Blaisdell’s edition, the designation A stands for AM 181b fol. and
B for Stockholm 46 fol.

33

Érec et Énide, verses 2434–610; Erex saga Artuskappa, ch. 7 (MS A)

/6 (MS B).

34

As for example, the first eulogy on her beauty originally counting more than 50
verses fades to some few words: Érec et Énide, verses 397–449; Erex saga Artuskappa,
ch. 3 (MS A)

/2 (MS B). The over 50 verses (3715–69) describing her feelings and

personal deliberations are omitted entirely in the adaptation.

35

Érec et Énide, verses 6192–345. The translated passage spends just a few words noting
that the young woman is Énide’s cousin after explaining that she and her lover had
to segregate themselves from this world because his social status as a mere knight is
lower than hers: Erex saga Artuskappa, ch. 13 (MS A)

/12 (MS B).

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

401

36

Ívens saga, ch. 7 (MS A and B). The passage cited is from MS A (MS B is proposing the
same text but in a slightly more damaged state). This passage is omitted in MS C. In
the edition I refer to, namely Blaisdell’s edition, A stands for Stockholm 6 4to, B for
AM 489 4to, and C for Stockholm 46 fol. Blaisdell’s translation (182–3): ‘because
that is the custom of most women – and the natural characteristic – that that which
pleases them well – whether that helps or injures – then that shall always come about
which lies in their heart. For that reason it is difficult for many to guard against the
fickleness of women’. About the characteristics of the adaption into Old Norse of
Yvain ou Le Chevalier au lion, I refer to Reynard, ‘Når en roman av Chrétien de Troyes
blir til en norrøn saga’, in particular 251–6.

37

As Jonna Kjær points out (‘Censure morale et transformations idéologiques dans
deux traductions de Chrétien de Troyes’, 287–96). In this article, Kjær describes
also – among other particularities of these translations – the censorship of erotic
elements. Here, I also refer to Geraldine Barnes who remarks: ‘Clerical authorship
may be responsible for their overtly didactic element’, ‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’,
532. Furthermore, about the moralizing tendency, cf. Almazan, ‘Translations at the
Castilian and Norwegian Courts in the Thirteenth Century’, 226, who noted, refer-
ring to Paul Schach, that – among other examples of modifications occurring – in
Tristrams saga, Tristan is going to pray in a church instead of visiting a feast along
with some friends. Finally, I should like to add that in Erex saga the adapter invented
that Evida is being asked for her consent to marry Erex by her father, something
Chrétien does not even suggest (Erex saga Artuskappa, ch. 3 (MS A)

/ch. 2 (MS B)).

Following Jenny Jochens, consent in marriage – first fully formulated as Christian
doctrine in the middle of the 12th century – started already some three decades
later to be propagated in Norway, and ‘audible female consent became the hallmark
of Christian marriage legislation in the north’ (Women in Old Norse Society, 44–5). In
my opinion, this addition – which obviously suits very well the ecclesiastical politics
of the 13th century – has a clear didactic intent and is a further argument to support
that the translators very probably were clergymen.

38

See in particular Mundal, ‘Riddardiktinga og det norrøne samfunnet’.

39

Barnes, in ‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’, 532 and ‘The riddarasögur and Mediæval
European Literature’, 140–58, underlines that the ‘purpose [of the riddarasögur]
as stated in the Strengleikar and illustrated throughout the translations, is to
instruct, improve, elevate and inspire those to whom they were directed’ (see ‘The
riddarasögur and Mediæval European Literature’, 157). I prefer to put it ‘first at all
instructive’ in order to emphasize that their entertaining value is not to be excluded
even if that is not their main purpose. Furthermore, as mentioned before, Möttuls
saga stands apart.

40

In fact, neither Lancelot nor Cligès got a positive reception outside the French speaking
cultural domain. As Per Nykrog noted, among the five romances known as writ-
ten by Chrétien, Lancelot and Cligès are the only ones not to have been translated
in that time neither into German nor into Norse or Welsh. Lancelot and Cligès are
problematic texts (Chrétien de Troyes, 113).

41

Simek, ‘Lancelot in Iceland’, 212. Here it should be noted that as Rudolf Simek sup-
ports the view that the story of Lancelot was known in the North, Carol J. Clover
has pointed out that Eliduc was probably known in medieval Iceland, which in par-
ticular the weasel episode in Völsunga saga – having most likely Eliduc as its source
– tends to prove. Furthermore, she thinks that this reinforces the view (supported,

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

402

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

as she notes, by Robert Cook and Matthias Tveitane, Strengleikar, XVII) that Eliduc
was indeed in the original MS translated in Norway at the court of King Hákon but
‘was omitted deliberately from the Norse translation’, although she suggests other
reasons than mine for this omission, namely that ‘the Norse editor either anticipated
separate publication later or, just as likely, knew it to be in independent circulation
already’ (Clover, ‘Völsunga saga and the Missing lai of Marie de France’, 83).

42

Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le roman de Lancelot, verses 1–29.

43

Noble, Love and Marriage in Chrétien de Troyes, 65 (both quotations).

44

Nykrog, Chrétien de Troyes, 145–9.

45

Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le roman de Lancelot, verses 44–63.

46

Ibid., verses 82–161.

47

Keu was pretending he could answer to Méléagant’s challenge, namely to leave the
court accompanied by the queen in order to meet him in the forest and fight there
for the release of Arthur’s subjects. Keu fails of course; he and the queen are taken
prisoners (Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le roman de Lancelot, verses 171–265).

48

Nykrog, Chrétien de Troyes, 121. My translation; original: ‘cet Arthur est un mauvais
roi, confus et incapable, et les hommes de sa cour ne valent pas mieux’.

49

Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le roman de Lancelot, verses 345–77 and 3003–133.

50

Ibid., verses 5632–875.

51

Ibid., verses 560–74 and 4250–316.

52

Schach, ‘Some Observations on the Influence of Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar on Old
Icelandic Literature’, 85.

53

Brandsma, ‘Lancelot’, 165.

54

Leach, Angevin Britain and Scandinavia, 183–4; Almazan, ‘Translations at the Castilian
and Norwegian Courts in the Thirteenth Century’, 216 (here Almazan is referring
back to Leach, Angevin Britain and Scandinavia, 113).

55

Brandsma, ‘Lancelot’, 163.

56

Ibid.; and Bruckner, ‘Redefining the Center’, 104.

57

Even if Norris J. Lacy (‘The Sense of an Ending’, 121) notes: ‘the reader never loses
sight of the fact that there is another – ultimate and overarching – cause of Camelot’s
fall: the futility and vanity of Arthurian chivalry, which has simply outlived its time’.

58

Noble, Love and Marriage in Chrétien de Troyes, 68–9.

59

Ibid., 72 (both quotations).

60

Nykrog, Chrétien de Troyes, 81.

61

Noble, Love and Marriage in Chrétien de Troyes, 43.

62

Owen, ‘Profanity and its Purpose in Chrétien’s Cligès and Lancelot’, 37–48, in
particular 40–5.

63

Eliduc, verses 21–8.

64

Ibid., verses 934–96 and 1008–68.

65

Ibid., verses 1085–134.

References

Almazan, Vincent. ‘Translations at the Castilian and Norwegian Courts in the Thirteenth

Century: Parallels and Patterns’. Mediaeval Scandinavia 12 (1988): 213–32.

Barnes, Geraldine Robyn. ‘The riddarasögur: A Literary and Social Analysis’. Ph.D. diss.,

University College London, London, 1974.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

403

———. ‘The riddarasögur and Mediæval European Literature’. Mediaeval Scandinavia 8

(1975): 140–58.

——— ‘The riddarasögur. A Medieval Exercise in Translation’. Saga-Book 19 (1977):

403–41.

———. ‘Arthurian Chivalry in Old Norse’. In Arthurian Literature 7, ed. Richard Barber,

50–102. Cambridge: Brewer, 1987.

———. ‘Some Current Issues in riddarasögur Research’. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 104 (1989):

73–88.

———. ‘Riddarasögur. 2: Translated’. In Medieval Scandinavia. An Encyclopedia, ed. Phillip

Pulsiano, 531–3. New York: Garland, 1993.

Bengtsson, Herman. Den höviska kulturen i Norden. En konsthistorisk undersökning. Stockholm:

Almqvist & Wiksell, 1999.

Brandsma, Frank. ‘Lancelot’. In A Dictionary of Medieval Heroes. Characters in Medieval

Narrative Traditions and their Afterlife in Literature, Theatre and the Visual Arts, ed. Willem
P. Gerritsen and Anthony G. van Melle, 160–70. Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000.

Bruckner, Matilda Tomaryn. ‘Redefining the Center: Verse and Prose Charrette’. In

A Companion to the ‘Lancelot-Grail Cycle’, ed. Carol Dover, 95–105. Cambridge:
Brewer, 2003.

Boyer, Régis, ed. Les sagas de chevaliers (Riddarasögur). Actes de la Ve Conférence Internationale sur

les Sagas (Toulon, juillet 1982). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1985.

Chrétien de Troyes. Le Chevalier de la Charrette ou Le roman de Lancelot. Ed. Charles Méla.

Paris: Lettres Gothiques, 1992.

———. Érec et Énide, Ed. Michel Rousse. Paris: GF-Flammarion, 1994.
Clover, Carol J. ‘Völsunga saga and the Missing lai of Marie de France’. In Sagnaskemntun.

Studies in Honour of Hermann Pálsson on his 65

th

Birthday, 26

th

May 1986, ed. Rudolf

Simek, Jónas Kristjánsson, and Hans Bekker-Nielsen, 79–84. Wien: Böhlau, 1986.

Cook, Robert. ‘Strengleikar’. In Traductions norroises de textes français médiévaux, ed. Povl

Skårup, 103–13. Revue des Langues Romanes 102 (1998): 3–116.

Cook, Robert, and Mattias Tveitane. Strengleikar. An Old Norse Translation of Twenty-One Old

French lais. Ed. from the Manuscript Uppsala De la Gardie 4–7, AM 666 b, 4

◦

. Oslo: Norsk

Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt, 1979.

Eliduc. In Les Lais de Marie de France, ed. Jean Rychner, 155–91 (variants 232–4, notes

280–8). Paris: Champion, 1983.

Erex saga Artuskappa. Ed. Foster W. Blaisdell. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1965.
Fidjestøl, Bjarne. ‘Romantic Reading at the Court of Hákon Hákonarson’. In Selected Papers,

ed. Odd Einar Haugen and Else Mundal, trans. Peter Foote, 351–65. Odense: Odense
University Press, 1997.

Frappier, Jean. Le Roman Breton. Chrétien de Troyes: Yvain ou Le Chevalier au Lion. Paris: Centre

de Documentation Universitaire, 1958.

Friesen, Marilyn Joan Ardis. ‘“Le Cort Mantel” and “Möttuls saga”: A Literary Comparison’.

Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois, 1983.

Ívens saga. Ed. Foster W. Blaisdell. Copenhagen: Reitzel, 1979.
Jochens, Jenny. Women in Old Norse Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Kalinke, Marianne E. ‘Amplification in Möttuls saga: Its Function and Form’. Acta Philologica

Scandinavica 32 (1979): 239–55.

———. ‘Scribes, Editors, and the riddarasögur’. In Arkiv för nordisk filologi 97 (1982):

36–51.

———. ‘Norse Romance (Riddarasögur)’. In Old Norse-Icelandic Literature. A Critical Guide,

ed. Carol J. Clover and John Lindow, 316–63. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

404

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

———. ‘The Arthurian Legend in Breta sögur: Historiography on the Cusp of Romance’.

In Greppaminni. Rit til heiðurs Vésteini Ólasyni sjötugum, ed. Margrét Eggertsdóttir,
Árni Sigurjónsson, Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, Guðrún Nordal, and Guðvarður Már
Gunnlaugsson, 217–30. Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, 2009.

Karlamagnus saga ok kappa hans. Fortællinger om Keiser Karl Magnus og hans Jevninger i norsk

Bearbeidelse fra det trettende Aarhundrede. Ed. Carl Rikard Unger. Christiania: Jensen,
1860.

Kjær, Jonna. ‘Censure morale et transformations idéologiques dans deux traductions de

Chrétien de Troyes: ‹Ívens saga› et ‹Erex saga›’. In The Audience of the Sagas, The 8th
International Saga Conference, Gothenburg University, 11–17 August 1991, 287–96.
Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 1991.

Lacy, Norris J. ‘The Sense of an Ending: La Mort le Roi Artu’. In A Companion to the ‘Lancelot-

Grail Cycle’, ed. Carol Dover, 115–23. Cambridge: Brewer, 2003.

Lacy, Norris J., and Joan Tasker Grimbert, eds. A Companion to Chrétien de Troyes. Cambridge:

Brewer, 2008.

Leach, Henry Goddard. Angevin Britain and Scandinavia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1921.

Les relations littéraires franco-scandinaves au Moyen Age. Actes du Colloque de Liège [organisé

par la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège, 26–28] avril 1972.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1975.

Loomis, Roger Sherman, ed. Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. A Collaborative History.

2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

Matyushina, Inna. ‘On the Imagery and Style of riddarasögur’. In Scandinavia and Christian

Europe in the Middle Ages, Papers of the 12th International Saga Conference, Bonn,
Germany, 28 July–2 August 2003, ed. Rudolf Simek and Judith Meurer, 345–54.
Bonn: Universität Bonn, 2003.

Meißner, Rudolf. Die Strengleikar: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der altnordischen Prosalitteratur.

Halle a. S.: Niemeyer, 1902.

Mundal, Else. ‘Riddardiktinga og det norrøne samfunnet’. In Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi

Årbok 1982 (1984): 175–86.

Möttuls saga. In The Knights of the Round Table, ed. Marianne E. Kalinke, 1–31. Cambridge:

Brewer, 1999.

Noble, Peter S. Love and Marriage in Chrétien de Troyes. Cardiff: University of Wales Press,

1982.

Nykrog, Per. Chrétien de Troyes. Romancier discutable. Genève: Droz, 1996.
Owen, Douglas David Roy. ‘Profanity and its Purpose in Chrétien’s Cligès and Lancelot’.

In Arthurian romance. Seven essays, ed. D. D. R. Owen, 37–48. Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press, 1970.

Reynard, Liliane. ‘Når en roman av Chrétien de Troyes blir til en norrøn saga. Fra Yvain ou

Le Chevalier au Lion til Ívens Saga’. Historisk tidsskrift [Norwegian] 83 (2004): 245–59.

———. ‘Fra Érec et Énide til Erex saga: Tilpasning og sensur’. In Rittersagas – Übersetzung,

Überlieferung, Transmission. Wissenschaftliches Symposion, 13–16 Mai 2004, 1–10. Basel:
Universitä Basel, 2004.

Rindal, Magnus. ‘Barlaams saga ok Josaphats’. In Medieval Scandinavia. An Encyclopedia, ed.

Phillip Pulsiano, 36. New York: Garland, 1993.

Schach, Paul. ‘The Style and Structure of Tristrams saga’. In Scandinavian Studies. Essays

Presented to Dr. Henry Goddard Leach on the Occasion of his Eighty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Carl F.
Bayerschmidt and Erik J. Friis, 63–86. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1965.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014

TRANSLATIONS AT THE COURT OF HÁKON HÁKONARSON

405

———. ‘Some Observations on the Influence of Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar on Old Icelandic

Literature’. In Old Norse Literature and Mythology. A Symposium, ed. Edgar C. Polomé,
81–129. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1969.

Simek, Rudolf. ‘Lancelot in Iceland’. In Les sagas de chevaliers (Riddarasögur). Actes de la Ve

Conférence Internationale sur les Sagas (Toulon, juillet 1982), ed. Régis Boyer, 205–16.
Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 1985.

———. ‘Möttuls saga’. In Medieval Scandinavia. An Encyclopedia, ed. Phillip Pulsiano, 427.

New York: Garland, 1993.

Skårup, Povl. ‘Karlamagnus saga’. In Medieval Scandinavia. An Encyclopedia, ed. Phillip

Pulsiano, 349–50. New York: Garland, 1993.

———, ed. ‘Traductions norroises de textes français médiévaux’. Revue des Langues Romanes

102 (1998): 3–116.

Togeby, Knud. ‘L’influence de la literature française sur les littératures scandinaves au moyen

âge’. In Généralités, ed. Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, 333–95. Heidelberg: Winter, 1972.

Liliane Irlenbusch-Reynard (b. 1958), doc. fil. from Paris IV-Sorbonne (France),

Associate Professor from 2007–2009 and since then postdoctoral fellow at the Department

of Cultural Studies and Languages, University of Stavanger (Norway). Her current project

of research is ‘Rollo Princeps Normannorum: History and Fiction’. Before, her research

dealt with the Europeanization of mentalities in the North during the 13th century,

which resulted in several presentations at international conferences and articles (e.g. in

Scandinavian Journal of History, 2006, and Mediaevistik, 2008). Address: Institutt for kultur-

og språkvitenskap, Hulda Garborgs hus, Universitetet i Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway.

[email: [e-mail]]

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:07 24 January 2014