Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Síða 198
196
implications, as was pointed out earlier in this chapter (see
Andersson 1978:157). Yet Arent’s consistent emphasis on
the general at the cost of the specific alters the original ori-
entation of the saga and loses an important dimension.
Although Magnússon and Pálsson have cooperated in
translating numerous sagas, the “Note on the translation”
which generally prefaces their Penguin editions gives little
direct evidence of their approach. From their discussion of
other translations, however, one can often glean indirect
evidence as to the approach they intend to follow: they crit-
icise early translations as too archaic and more recent ones
for straying too far from the original - or misinterpreting
it.1
In addition, Hermann Pálsson has written numerous
reviews of saga translations. Those aspects which he sin-
gles out for criticism reveal much about his own concep-
tions. Paul Schach’s translation of Eyrbyggja saga, for
instance, is criticised especially for its misunderstandings
of the original, and renderings that are at odds with the thir-
teenth-century Icelandic culture of the saga.
George Johnston’s version of Fœreyinga saga is praised
for its “lucid exposition of the cultural significance” of the
saga, which Pálsson maintains, “could serve as a model for
future saga translators.” (Pálsson 1976:214) Pálsson, how-
ever, is definitely opposed to the course chosen by
Johnston in attempting to preserve the tense shifts of the
saga.2 In so doing, Pálsson claims, “Some of Professor
Johnston’s more literal renderings produce awkwardness
not to be found in the original.” (Pálsson 1976:215)
These criticisms tell us much about Pálsson’s own
approach to saga translation, whether he is working in
cooperation with Magnús Magnússon, as is the case here,
or with Paul Edwards, another Icelandic specialist with
1 See “Notes on the translation” in Laxdœla saga and Njals saga.
2 See section on tense in the original and translations in Chapter IV.