Studia Islandica - 01.06.1957, Síða 38

36
situations where he either had to coin a new word, in
order to reproduce an expression in the original, or to
use a number of words instead of one. He followed both
these courses. “Instinct” he thus renders once with
“náttúrutogun” (the urge of nature) which at least con-
veys the underlying idea. Again, he renders the Danish
translation of “nice dependencies” (30, Epistle I): “hve
nákvæmt, nett, nemur hver partur annan við” (“how
accurately, nicely every part fits in with the next”).
This lack of adequate expressions in his own language
coupled with the superlative conciseness of Pope clearly
reveals what a tremendous task Þorláksson undertook, a
task well nigh impossible, and which only a great poet
and linguistic expert could attempt with any hope of
success.
In syntax the translation is practically flawless. In-
versions and transpositions, although frequent and legiti-
mate in Icelandic poetry, hardly ever lead to ambiguity.
Taken as a whole, the translation of the Essay leaves
a good deal to be desired. AIl things considered, however,
it is probably all that could be expected. The difficulties
involved, already discussed, were too great. To be sure,
Þorláksson possessed many of the qualifications for such
an undertaking, such as the ability of versifying and the
necessary command of the language of poetry. His
mastery of his native tongue is, especially in the major
translations, of the Essay, Paradise Lost, and Klopstock’s
Messias, always great and often marvelous. A gifted poet,
he also possessed the insight which alone is capable of
grasping and understanding the individuality of a writer,
as expressed in his style. However, he did not, so far as
our information goes, have any first hand knowledge of
Pope’s life and works. He had only read the Essay in the
Danish translation, which is far from perfect. This is of
the greatest importance, because a faithful reproduction
of the thought and the style of a writer necessarily re-