Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1959, Síða 206
192
appears to have been translated in Kms, and this verse may have been
taken out of its context and added between vv. 1412 and 1413, in a
slightly different form (e.g. by changing the verbal forms from the plural
to the singular: laisse CX has an assonance in -ant).
The addition in Kms may be either a saga summary of vv. 1417—22, or
it may be based on one or two French verses not recorded elsewhere.
The characteristic feature of this part of the translation is the omission
of a number of laisses, the dreams in vv. 717-36, vv. 855-59, 1002-16,
1028-48, 1170-87, and 1396-1411. There is a marked contrast between
this part and the Norse version of vv. 1-702, where there were practically
no important omissions. The contrast is not due to any real difference be-
tween the two parts of the poem; there are repetitions and parallel pas-
sages in vv. 1-702 as in vv. 703-1422, and the omissions do not improve
the structure of the poem, or the story. The shortening of the text means
that this part of the Chanson de Roland has been transformed from a
work of art into an ordinary chanson de geste of the conventional type.
This is just what we might expect if the poem had been revised by one of
the usual remanieurs, and since some of the more extensive omissions at
least seem to have been carried out by someone who really knew the poem,
I am inclined to attribute them to a French (or Anglo-Norman) jongleur.
The translator might also cut down descriptions and incidents which he
thought had little connection with the main theme, but the nature of the
translation shows clearly that he was not well acquainted with the Roland
story, let alone the Chanson de Roland, and he leaves so many repetitions
and contradictions in his work that it would be surprising if he were
responsible for some of the apparently “planned” changes. But it must be
repeated that we are here treading on dangerous ground; arguments based
on omissions in a text are notoriously inconclusive.
Apart from these facts there is but scanty evidence for the existence of
the remaniement which has been used by the editor of V4 and the version
rimée: the most important is the “trumpet scene”, and the addition after
v. 813, compared with the omission of vv. 826-30, may also be explained
in this way.