Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1959, Blaðsíða 151
137
VI
Conclusions
Of the differences betvveen the Norse version and the French poem
discussed in this chapter, the changes are more interesting than either the
omissions or the additions, since most of the former are clearly due to the
original translator rather than to later scribes; and the most interesting
feature is certainly the errors of translation. I have pointed out a number
of words which the translator apparently did not know, and M. Aebi-
scher30 has an impressive list of “unknown” words. But his method of
establishing this list is not satisfactory; his argument is too often based
on the omission of verses or parts of verses, and these omissions need not
have anything to do with the problem of words or expressions which the
translator did not know.
M. Aebischer regards the Kms as a rather bad translation of the Chanson
de Roland. But as already pointed out, the translator never intended to
create a Norse chanson de geste; he was probably charged with the task of
writing a Norse version of the saga of Roland, but unfortunately he chose
to base his version on the Chanson de Roland, and he wTas not sufficiently
elever, and independent, to make a success of his rendering. Some of his
contemporaries, notably Robert and the translator or Marie de France’s
Lais, were fully aware of the faet that, since their sources were not ordin-
ary prose tales, a very special technique was required if some of the poetic
flavour of their originals was to be transferred to the Norse prose versions.
They accepted the challenge and were fairly successful in responding to it.
The translator of the Runzivals påttr seems not to have been aware of
any challenge at all; he simply translated verse by verse and word by
word, avoiding difficulties and omitting what appeared to him to be
merely superfluous epithets and repetitions here and there. He cannot be
blamed for not creating a good version of the poem, but we may well blame
him for not making a better saga out of an excellent theme. He leaves out
vivid details, and at the same time adds absurd and useless explanations,
and although he has omitted a number of repetitions, there are still too
many of them left in the text. His style is often pedestrian, and really
striking phrases are only too rare, even if platitudes are not as common
Rol. Bor. pp. 24-33, and in his commentaries to the text, passim.