Studia Islandica - 01.06.1957, Page 49

47
translation of Milton are great, but have been extra-
vagantly exaggerated by Henderson when he says: “The
translation not only rises superior to any other transla-
tion of Milton, but rivals, and in many instances in which
the Eddic phraseology is introduced, almost seems to sur-
pass the original.” This is very idle. There are, in fact,
few books in the world of literature, of which so many
good translations exist, as of Milton’s famous poem, and
though Þorláksson’s version has very great merit of its
own, that merit is rather as a paraphrase than a version,
which it is not; it is, in fact, recasting of Milton in Eddic
mould. Henderson goes on to say that: “Þorláksson has
not only supported its prevailing character (he has done
no such thing; the character of the poem is changed in
Þorláksson’s hands) but has nicely imitated his (Milton’s)
peculiar terms and more refined modifications’.” This is
equally an erroneous view: the narrow bounds of Eddic
verse make it impossible to introduce ‘those peculiar
terms’ and ‘refined modifications’ which the exquisite
ear of Milton enabled him to elaborate out of his own
sweet and sonorous blank verse; not that we think that
Þorláksson erred in choosing the Eddic measure, over
which he had a very decided mastery, and which at once
took the blind bard into the regions of the old Scandi-
navian epics. By it more was gained in association than
was lost by dissimilarity. “Although”, continues Hender-
son, “Þorláksson has found it impossible to give the effect
of certain sounds, yet this defect is more than com-
pensated by multiplicity of happy combinations, where
none exist in the original.” A strong case this, by the
way, against the superiority of Þorláksson’s over every
other translation. But, we repeat, it has little merit as
a translation — very great as a paraphrase. It is a beauti-
ful Icelandic poem, of which the English is the ground-
work.” x)
1) The Foreign Quarterly Review, London, 1832, pp. 73-74.