Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Blaðsíða 80
78
tain” (MP 117) although hersir ríkr was previously “a pow-
erful and well-born lord” (MP 47). Terms such as goði and
hersir obviously present problems, but they are not
resolved by simply confusing the issue.
The best solution would appear to be to explain briefly
the first occurrence of the word, and after that to use either
the translated equivalent or simply the term itself. At times
a conscious reader gains the impression that the confusion
found in some texts resulted when solutions were adopted
more or less ad hoc, only to be rejected later when others
appeared more suitable. On its first occurrence, Veblen
simply borrows the Icelandic term sel (V 111), then trans-
lates it as “dairy” and subsequently “dairy house” (V 189,
212, 213), only to return again to “Sel” (this time with a
capital) (V 214, 219).
The question of just how much additional information
is necessary is obviously not easily resolved. In an article
entitled “On Translation - I”, in Saga-Book (1957-61:383-
393), Maxwell takes issue with the translator who adds
explanatory words, such as “the Dales district”, and “came
out to Iceland”, as weakening “the feeling of being in the
story and among Icelanders”. He complains that transla-
tions such as “at the time legally set for summoning” for
um stefnudaga, “a fenced-off haystack” for stakkgarðr, and
“a trough-shaped saddle” for trogsöðull,' allow things “to
dissolve in definitions” (Maxwell 1957-61:389). He fails,
however, to suggest any alternatives. How else, one won-
ders, should a translator render trogsöðulll
The use of explanatory glossaries which a reader can
avail himself of at will is one attempt to provide assistance
without forcing it on all readers of the story. If translators
are aiming at a general readership, they must provide some
assistance to aid general understanding.
1 The examples are all taken from Schach’s translation of Eyrbyggja
saga.