Mode of Reception and Function of Medieval Texts: A Comparative Study of Elye de Saint-Gilles and Elis saga ok Rósamundu

The aim of this article is to analyze the function and mode of reception¹ of variant versions of a medieval text² as they appear in different codico-logical, cultural, and social contexts. The text in question is the story of Elye, which was translated from Old French to Old Norse in the thirteenth century. The Old French chanson de geste Elye de Saint-Gilles originated in the twelfth century but is preserved in only one medieval manuscript, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 25516 (fols. 76r–95r), from North East France, dated ca. 1280. The manuscript is associated with the House of Flanders. The Old Norse translation Elis saga ok Rósamundu was commissioned by King Hákon Hákonarson of Norway (r. 1217–63), according to the testimony of the oldest manuscript, and is preserved in one Norwegian manuscript and a number of Icelandic vellum and paper manuscripts and fragments.³ The following is a comparison of the Old French version with the Old Norse version found in the Norwegian manuscript De la Gardie 4–7 folio (DG 4–7),⁴ dated to ca. 1270.⁵ This is the oldest version of the saga, and is considered to be a copy of a copy of the actual translation. The manuscript was written in southwest Norway, possibly around the town of Bergen, either in the royal chancellery or in the nearby Lyse abbey, both of which were scribal milieus of sufficient stature to produce a manuscript like DG 4–7.⁶ The French and Norwegian manuscripts are almost contemporary, yet there is no direct relationship between them; that is, the Norwegian version is certainly not based on the extant French version, since the latter is somewhat younger. The two manuscripts are linked to two great political and cultural milieus and it is the mode of reception of the two versions and their function in their respective contexts that will be discussed here.

Theoretical Introduction

A text’s mode of reception may be seen as an aspect of the relationship between orality and literacy in medieval culture. According to the so-called oral-formulaic tradition⁷ and great-divide tradition,⁸ orality and literacy are seen as the opposing ends in a dichotomy. In recent research, it has become common to focus on the dynamic and intertwined relationship between orality and literacy. In addition, the distinction between the modes of composition and the transmission and reception of a text has been emphasized, since these may relate to orality and literacy in varying degrees.⁹ Whereas a written text may originally have been composed orally, it may subsequently have been written down with the intention of being publicly read or orally performed.

The mode of reception of a text may be approached in various ways. One method is to study the prologue, epilogue, and other relevant parts of a text for explicit information concerning the mode of reception in such expressions as: “As you will hear,” “As you have heard,” “. . . those who read and hear,” etc.¹⁰ Such expressions have been interpreted as residual formulae, without directly signifying the mode of reception intended by the author/scribe. Their formulaic character does not, however, contradict an interpretation with regard to the mode of reception, since formulas may have been used consciously by an author/scribe to facilitate the flow of the text and make it appropriate for an oral performance. Studying rhetorical features such as formulae, addresses to the audience, a narrator’s comments, the use of direct speech, and the use of temporal vs. spatial adverbs is another approach to the discussion of a text’s mode of reception.¹¹ The use of such rhetorical devices has also been interpreted either as an indicator of the oral composition of a text, especially by the advocates of the oral-formulaic theory, or as a tool used by a consciously writing author who intended to create a certain rhetorical flow appropriate for a specific mode of reception. It is the...