Studia Islandica - 01.06.1957, Blaðsíða 58

56
Puritanism he speaks for a large number of his country-
men, not only among his own contemporaries, but also
of the age of Þorláksson. And this dislike of Puritanism
has probably been responsible for the circumstance that
the translation of Paradise Lost has not become a classic,
in the sense that have the later translations of Homer’s
Odyssey and Iliad by Sveinbjöm Egilsson (1791—1852),
although they are hardly superior, at least not as regards
style, and were, in fact, to some extent influenced by
the former. The Icelander brought up on the epic litera-
ture of the Sagas, naturally found Homer far more to
his taste than Milton.
Þorláksson had already proved himself successful in
word formation in his translation of the Essay on Man.
The translation of Paradise Lost further attests his
linguistic judgement and ability. Nor is the excellence
in language its only merit. It contains a great number of
faithful and well rendered passages. As an example, the
Council in Hell may be cited, which is in general faith-
fully, and, in parts, admirably translated. Moreover, al-
though in a different verse form, the translation has not
a little of that majestic sonority so characteristic of Para-
dise Lost. (Cf. Tennyson: “God gifted organ-voice of
Milton”.).
It is, in fact, most surprising how much Miltonic spirit
the translation possesses, considering that it was based
on imperfect versions. Although it falls short of perfec-
tion — and what translation does not — it is far more
than the paraphrase which Finnur Magnússon would call
it. On the other hand, Henderson’s praise is somewhat
exaggerated. The truth lies between those two extreme
views. No more than that of the Essay on Man can the
translation of Paradise Lost be regarded as a flawless
production, but the latter is much nearer to that ideal
than the former. It is most regrettable that Þorláksson