Studia Islandica - 01.06.1957, Blaðsíða 36

34
dal’s translation.1) But this was made directly from the
original itself. On the other hand, we must not forget,
that having probably never seen the original of the
Essay, basing his translation on another, which did not
faithfully reproduce the style and the spirit of the ori-
ginal, Þorláksson was at a great disadvantage, and his
translation must ultimately be judged in the light of that
circumstance.
While the translation contains not a few inaccuracies
and a great number of expansions and additions, omis-
sions are comparatively rare. The most serious ones are
the following lines: 10—12, Epistle II, 91—92, Epistle
III, and 173—178, Epistle IV. Other omissions are of less
importance, mostly consisting in the leaving out of short
phrases in a few places or, in some cases, of a single
word. It is further to be noted that all the omissions
occurring in the part of the Icelandic translation which
was compared with the Danish are already in the latter.
Þorláksson’s fidelity to his original is here seen again.
Nor has he, with very few exceptions, fallen into the
error, so common in translations, of failing to reproduce
the imagery of the original, in his case the Danish ver-
sion. Hardly ever is a simile lost, and when that happens
Þorláksson has again followed his Danish model. In deal-
ing with the similes he has, much to his credit, nearly
always succeeded in reproducing the original or replac-
ing it by a substitute producing similar aesthetic effect.
This brings us to the language of the translation. Here
great care must be exercised by the translator; in his
choice of words he must always be guided by the original;
the language of which and that of the translation, should,
so to speak, be on the same level, simplicity of expres-
1) For a more detailed discussion of his translation, as well as
of other translations from Pope in Icelandic (besides the Essay),
see Richard Beck, “Alexander Pope and Icelandic Literature”,
Scandinavian Studies, May, 1953, pp. 37-45.