Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1959, Síða 235
221
also omitted in the saga. All these omissions must be due to a desire to
shorten the story, without regard to the literary importance of most of
the omitted verses.
IX
The Baligant episode
This episode and its prelude, vv. 2570-2844 and 2974-3681, have dis-
appeared in the saga. Kms is not derived from an “Ur-Roland” as was
occasionally maintained by earlier scholars; our version is based on an
older Chanson de Roland which did contain this episode. The decisive
proof of this is the presence of Charlemagne’s dreams in vv. 2525-69, a
faet which was already recognized by Storm in 18 7 4 47, and again by
M. Horrent48. The dreams foretell a battie, and it is quite certain that
the details refer to incidents in the battie against Baligant. The translator
may have thought that the battie was some unknown future event, or he
may not have thought at all, but at any rate, he translated, in a way, most
of the verses dealing with the dreams.
Another, and, for our purposes, more important question is: who
omitted the Baligant episode, the translator or a French remanieurl It
is usually taken for granted that the translator was responsible, but the
arguments advanced in favour of this theory are not very strong49.
Storm points out that the saga has apparently shortened the text of its
source, especially towards the end of the branch. But, he adds, it is probably
not just to get to the end of the tale that the translator has omitted the
episode: he knew from Turpin’s Chronicle that no such glorious victory
occurred as the second act of the drama.
Neither of these reasons can be accepted. We know that the editor of
the saga knew the Pseudo-Turpin, but we do not know if the editor is
identical with the translator of the Chanson de Roland. Secondly, the
Chronicle does not mention this battie, but that does not make it impossible
that it took place; mediæval compilators never hesitate to supplement their
” Sagnkredsene, p. 24.
48 La Chanson de Roland, etc. pp. 125-28. M. Aebischer: Rol. Bor. pp. 227-28,
agrees.
" Storm, p. 24. MM. Horrent and Aebischer are less willing to attribute the omis-
sion to the translator.