>From: Kevin Steffen <modeldsnr@...>
>Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of the quality of the Benjamin
>Thorpe and I.A. Blackwell translations (1906)? My only complaint is
>that it does not have the original Old Norse text so I can try to follow
>along and see what I can learn.
I'm not sure if you are referring to one or two translations here.
I'm not familiar with Blackwell, but I have seen a translation by
Thorpe which is dated 1866. Is Thorpe/Blackwell perhaps a revised
edition of this?
However, I was pleasantly surprised by Thorpe's translation, because
its age indicated a pretty bad one. However, I have found it to be
surprisingly accurate for such an old translation. That said, please
understand I am not saying it is without serious faults. There are
some pretty bad bloopers there, as in most other translations, but
in many cases it is more accurate than, say, Hollander.
I wish I could simply recommend one good translation to you and all
others who care about accuracy, but this is something I simply can't
do. The only translatation which I consider to be accurate enough for
unreserved recommendation is Dronke's, but this is neither complete
nor affordable.
>From: Gary Spaulding <baldr369@...> I have a translation of the edda
>by Lee M. Hollander
>would this be a book i should count on?
As Haukur has already stated here, Hollander's translation is
quite readable, and "fairly" accurate. However, Hollander's attempts
to imitate the Old Icelandic poetic metres are often ludicrous, and
frequently result in extreme "poetic licence". His wild searches for
alliterating words tend to make him sacrifice accuracy in a big way,
and make up things from his own imagination.
If you're just looking for a poetic translation, where accuracy doesn't
matter very much, Hollander is probably not a bad choice. At least he
understood the language pretty well. When his translation is less than
accurate (or badly inaccurate) it is usually not because he misunderstood
the language (like Larrington), but because the poetic constraints he set
himself forced him to translate very loosely, add words from his own heart,
and delete words which are there in the source text. He is particularly
prone to adding vivid adjectives, which are not there in the original poems,
which is rather unfortunate, as the style of the originals is not exactly
rich in descriptive adjectives. Here is a small example from Hymiskvi�a 13
(5-8):
Fram gengu �eir,
en forn j�tunn
sj�num leiddi
sinn andskota.
Literally:
Forth they stepped,
and the ancient giant
beheld with the eyes
his adversary.
But Hollander changes the meaning of the only adjective ("ancient")
and adds an adjective and an adverb which are not there in the text:
Then forth they came.
The fell etin
grimly eyed then
his old foeman.
The "ancient" giant has become "fell", and he now looks "grimly"
upon the young Thor, who is now his "old" foeman. I'm sure you
will agree that the tone of this neutral-sounding half-stanza has
been totally changed, and loaded with a threatening atmosphere,
which is not at all there in the original text.
This kind of thing is probably fine for those who don't care much
about the accuracy here, and are not averse to having the narrative
spiced up a bit. But for those who want to study the old texts in
depth, this kind of licence is simply disastrous, and may, in many
cases, cause you to reach conclusions which are not warranted by the
source material.
Regards
Pelle
P.S. - Since Thorpe was mentioned, here's how he renders the lines
quoted above:
The two came forth,
but the old J�tun
with eyes surveyed
his adversary.
Which is as accurate as can be. Nothing lost, nothing added (apart
the word "two" - which is perfectly innocent and acceptable). [And
I'd better mention that Larrington's translation is quite acceptable
here! It is, in fact, very difficult to make a mess of these simple lines,
unless you try really hard, like Hollander.]
P.
_________________________________________________________________
Hold kontakten med dine venner med MSN Messenger
http://messenger.msn.dk