Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1981, Side 190
ly in light of Schach’s subsequent work - that we have before us a group
of sagas the stylistic interrelationship of which cannot be denied. Wheth-
er Brother Robert is responsible for all of them or whether they are the
work of a group of translators cannot be determined with certainty consid-
ering the information available to us. Nonetheless, a stylistic comparison
- even while it demonstrates the similarity of the translated Arthurian
romances (Erex saga excepted) - also raises some intriguing questions.
Why, for example, are there clusters of alliterating vocabulary in Januals
Ijod but not in Geitarlauf ?51 Why are heated verbal exchanges in Januals
Ijdd expanded by alliterating pairs vis-å-vis the French text, but not
Janual’s words in which he laments the loss of his beloved (in Lanval his
words are reported indirectly in vv. 380-82)?
“En nu heui ec,” kvad hann, “tynt unnasto minni af {mi er ec
rosade mér af åstar{mcca hennar. Firir {mi em ec harmsfullr.”
(p. 71)
(“But now,” he said, “I have lost my beloved because I boasted of
her affection. For this reason I am sorrowful.”)
The very lack of rhetorical ornamentation expresses more poignantly
than any sustained lament the depth of his grief; still, how unlike the
corresponding scene in Ivens saga the above passage is, how unlike the
laments in Tristrams saga and Parcevals saga. Why does only the author
of Parcevals saga consistently use rhymed couplets for emphasis? Why
are there participial clusters in Tristrams saga and in Parcevals saga -
clusters, as distinguished from isolated occurrences - but not in Ivens
saga, Mottuls saga, or the two Strengleikar?52 Despite the striking stylistic
51 Mattias Tveitane’s analysis of the linguistic differences among the several Strengleikar
places Geitarlauf and Januals Ijod into separate groups (Om språkform og forelegg i Streng-
leikar, Årbok for Universitetet i Bergen, Humanistisk Serie, No. 3, 1973 [Bergen-Oslo-
Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1973]). Tveitane argues: “The linguistic differences found in
the Old Norse text ... might be explained as the result of cooperation between a French
jongleur and at least two different Norwegian scribes or ‘secretaries.’ This would also imply
that the stories were probably told (in oral form) at the king’s court before they were
written down in the collection we now have” (p. 53). The theory of cooperation between a
French jongleur and Norwegian translator embraced by Tveitane was first proposed by
Anne Holtsmark in a review of E. F. Halvorsen’s The Norse Version of the Chanson de
Roland, in Maal og Minne, 1959, pp. 161-70 (see especially p. 163).
52 Foster W. Blaisdell, “The Present Participle in the Ivens saga," pp. 90-91.
176