Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Blaðsíða 21
19
so grenzenloses Vertrauen von der Úbersetzung gefordert, daB
spannungslos wie in jenem Sprache und Offenbarung so in dieser
Wörtlichkeit und Freiheit in Gestalt der Interlinearversion sich
vereinigen miissen. (in Störig 1963:169)
The influence of views like these on 19th-century trans-
lation can be plainly seen in the works of William Morris
(1834-96), whose translations of the Icelandic sagas will be
discussed in more detail later. Morris’s deliberately archa-
ic translations are written in an English so replete with
obscurities, peculiarities, dialect terms, and loan words that
it is scarcely readable. Nonetheless, his efforts were well
received by the pre-Raphaelite critics of his day, as con-
temporary reviews attest.1
Bates, writing on translation in the 1930s, also gives
Morris due credit for both spirit and letter:
Morris, with his vast knowledge of English, and his equally great
love of it and instinct for expressions in words, preferred to be
archaic to an extent which undoubtedly does put difficulties in the
way of the best-intentioned reader. At the same time, it is well
worth any one’s while to expect as much of himself as Morris
expects of him; given that, Morris is unapproached and
unapproachable; (Bates 1936:65)
On the whole writers of this period were less concerned
with the wider aspects of translation: its relation to thought
and meaning and its significance for the discussion of uni-
versal concepts of language. Relatively few attempted to
assess the contribution made by translated works towards
the development of national literary cultures. Almost no
attention was given to analysing text characteristics or dis-
tinguishing between types of texts, perhaps due to the fact
1 A review by G.A. Simcox, for instance, published in the Academy in
August 1870, praises Morris for his verse translation of The Sagas of the
Volsungs and Niblungs, saying: “The quaint, archaic English of the transla-
tions, with just the right outlandish flavour, does much to disguise the
inequalities and incompleteness of the original.” (Faulkner 1973:153)