Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Side 95

The resolutions of ambiguity discussed above can certainly be ascribed
to the translator. Yet in the greater number of cases, especially where
condensation or modification is substantial and extensive, attribution of
discrepancies relative to the sources is doubtful. On the whole, the Nor-
wegian Strengleikar deviate neither drastically - by modification of the
content - nor extensively - through substantial omission or addition -
from their sources. Januals Ijod is an exception, however. Despite the
faet that Januals Ijdd contains considerable amplification, mostly in the
form of stylistic ornamentation, the Norwegian version entirely omits an
extended speech by the Duke of Cornwall (vv. 433-60). Rudolf Meissner
expressed puzzlement at the deletion of the speech. He did not believe
that it had been omitted intentionally, yet offered no explanation for the
disappearance of the duke’s words from Januals Ijdd,43 Paul Aebischer,
however, attributed the lacuna to linguistic incompetence. The speech
contains a fair amount of legal terminology, and Aebischer surmised that
the translator “a butté contre les termes de droit, les expressions aussi
précises que techniques dont ce passage fourmille; c’est qu’en un mot il
ne l’a pas compris, et qu’il n’a trouvé d’autre moyen de se tirer d’embar-
ras qu’en supprimant le tout.”44 Such an hypothesis is untenable. A trans-
lator would hardly resort to as drastic an expedient as suppressing an
entire speech in order to save face. Aebischer’s explanation assumes a
lack of independence, a lack of creativity and ingenuity on the part of the
author of Januals Ijod. If the Norwegian Ijod had rendered the French
text word for word, with this single exception, then the omission of a
speech which constitutes, according to Aebischer, “le moment le plus
important et le plus pathétique du récit” (p. 91) would, of course, be
deleterious to the integrity of the whole. Januals Ijod is - notwithstand-
ing its dependence on the French source - an entity with an existence
distinet from Lanval. Various modifications in the Norwegian narrative,
balanced by deletions on one hånd, and amplifications on the other (see
pp. 146-48) result in a work that deserves to be considered on its own
merits.
The speech of the Duke of Cornwall is essential to the French lai, but
not to the Norwegian version. Textual modification in the confrontation
between King Arthur and Lanval renders an important element in the
duke’s speech superfluous and meaningless in the Ijod. In both lai and
Ijod the knight’s response to the charge of having made improper advan-
4-’ Die Strengleikar, p. 274.
44 Marie de France. Le lai du Lanval, ed. Jean Rychner, p. 91.
81