A thesis submitted to the Division of Modern Languages, Harvard University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, by Karl O. E. Anderson

In Three Volumes

Volume II
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1940

[391]

Chapter IV - Morris’s Style of Translation

Part I: Methods Used by Morris and Magnússon in Preparing their Translations

In the chronological survey which I have just completed of Morris’s Scandinavian studies, I have not, except for a few, brief, passing remarks, described the method of work with Morris and his collaborator, Eiríkr Wagnússon, followed in turning the Icelandic sagas into English, nor have I described and discussed the style of translation which Morris adopted for his English version of these tales. Both these matters are questions of great importance. Morris’s style of translation has been a subject of discussion among critics ever since his renderings began to be published, and it has exerted a wide influence upon later translators of Old Norse and Old English works; it is consequently essential for us to determine as definitely as possible just what part each of the two collaborators played in producing these English versions, Morris’s aims as a translator, the steps in the evolution of his style of translation, and, finally, the merits and defects of his method of translation.

As I have already stated in Chapter I,1 Morris first met Eiríkr Magnússon, his collaborator, late in the summer of 1868, and he immediately decided to take lessons in Icelandic from his new friend so that he would be albe to read the sagas in the original, some of which he had already come to know through translations. In the Preface to Volume VI of The Saga Library Magnús-

[392]

son presents a very vivid account of the beginnings of Morris’s Scandinavian studies:

His [Morris’s] first taste of Icelandic literature was the story of ‘Gunnlung2 the Snaketongue.’ I suggested we had better start with some grammar. ‘No, I can’t be bothered with grammar; have no time for it. You be my grammar as we translate. I want the literature, I must have the story. I mean to amuse myself.’ I read out to him some opening passages of the saga, in order to give him an idea of the modern pronunciation of the language. He repeated the passus as well as could be expected of a first beginner at five-and-thirty, naturally endowed with not a very flexible organ. But immediately he flew back to the beginning, saying: ‘But, look here, I see through it all, let me try and translate.’ Off he started, translated, blundered, laughed; but still, he saw through it all with an intuition that fairly took me aback. Henceforth no time must be wasted on reading out the original. He must have the story as quickly as possible. …In this way the best of the sagas were run through, at daily sittings, generally covering three hours, already before I left London for Cambridge in 1871. And even after that much work was still done, when I found time to come and stay with him.3

Some of the sagas which Morris and Magnússon thus read together they decided to publish in an English form; the procedure which they followed in producing such translations was described by Magnússon in a letter he wrote to Miss Morris in the early years of the twentieth century when she was preparing her edition of the Collected Works of her father:

We went together over the day’s task as carefully as the eager-mindedness of the pupil to acquire the story would allow. I afterwards wrote out at home a literal translation of it and handed it to him at our next lesson. With this before him Morris wrote down at his leisure his own version in his own style, which ultimately did service as printer’s copy when the Saga was published.4

To this account should be added the statement by Magnússon, in the Preface to Volume VI of The Saga Library, regarding their method of work in preparing the translations included in that

[393]
collection:

The work on it [The Saga Library] was divided between Morris and myself in the following manner: Having read together the sagas contained in the first three volumes, Morris wrote out the translation and I collated his MS. with the original. For the last two volumes of the Haimskringla the process was reversed, I doing the translation, he the collation; the style, too, he emended throughout in accordance with his own ideal.5

These statements by Magnússon present a fairly definite account of the way in which the tow collaborators produced their English version of the sagas. Still further details are furnished by the holograph manuscripts that have survived of these renderings. Man of these manuscripts will be discussed in great detail later in this chapter, and in some cases specimen pages will be presented in the Appendixes; here I shall simply comment on those features of these works which thrown light on Morris’s and Magnússon’s procedure. One of the most interesting of these manuscripts is that of the translation of the Grettis saga,6 which was one of the first Icelandic tales Morris and Magnússon read together. Here Morris has written out the English rendering, Magnússon has corrected it, and Morris has in turn passed judgment on Magnússon’s revisions. The resulting version, in part at least, served as printer’s copy. Moreover, occasional differences between the final manuscript form and the published text show that still more changes, evidently to be attributed to both Morris and Magnússon, were made in the proofreading. In the manuscript of the Eyrbyggja saga translation,7 the rendering is again in the hand of Morris, but here there are no corrections by Magnússon.

[394]
Evidently, when the two collaborators read this saga in the late 1860’s, they at first planned to publish a translation of it, and then decided not to do so, Magnússon therefore not taking the trouble to revise Morris’s draft. When they did print a translation of the Eyrbyggja saga in 1892 in Volume II of The Saga Library, Morris apparently wrote out an entirely new rendering, for the manuscript under consideration almost certainly was not the immediate source of the printed text; not only are the differences between the published form and the manuscript version so extensive that they cannot be the result of changes made in the course of the printing, but there are no notes and directions to the printers in this manuscript, such as we find in some of the others. Also in the hand of Morris are the manuscripts of the translation of Three Northern Love Stories, Hogni and Hedinn, Roi the Fool, and Thorstein Staff-smitten, of The Story of Howard the Halt, of The Story of King Harald Greyfell and of Earl Hakon the Son of Sigurd, and of The Story of King Olaf Tryggvason; these manuscripts I have not had an opportunity to examine, but brief descriptions of them in a bookseller’s catalogue reveal their nature.8

Of an entirely different type are the manuscripts of the later part of the Heimskringla translation. In the manuscripts of The Story of Olaf the Holy, the Son of Harald9 and The Story

[395]
of Sigurd the Jerusalem-farer, Eystein, and Olaf,10 both of which I have seen, Magnússon has written out the original translation, using only the right-hand page; in the case of the “vísur,” he has copied out the Icelandic in the prose order and has given the English rendering underneath, word by word; Morris has revised the prose directly on the right-hand page, making extensive changes, and has placed his verse translation of the “vísur” on the left-hand page, opposite Magnússon’s prose rendering. In this form the manuscript was sent to the printer. Finally, still further alterations were made, evidently by both Morris and Magnússon, in the proofreading, for we find a number of differences between the final manuscript version and the published test, just as in the case of the Grettis saga translation. Occasionally on the left-hand page we find notes in Morris’s hand, querying renderings by Magnússon or suggesting different interpretations; a letter written by Morris to Magnússon, which is quoted by Miss May Morris in one of her works, indicates that after Morris had revised Magnússon’s English version, the two collaborators were in the habit of meeting and discussing their work,11 and it was evidently with these discussions in mind that Morris made the notes just mentioned. Finally I should like to point out that the manuscripts of The Story of Magnus the Good and The Story of Harald the Hard-redy, the sagas immediately following the Ólafs saga hins helga in the Heimskringla, are also in the handwriting of Magnússon, with

[396]

alterations by Morris; I have not seen either one of these manuscripts, but the first is thus described in a bookseller’s catalogue12 and the nature of the second is revealed in a remark made by Miss May Morris in one of her discussions of her father’s Scandinavian work.13

On the basis, then, of Magnússon’s accounts and of these manuscripts, we can make a fairly definite statement as to how Morris and Magnússon proceeded in preparing their translations. In the early years of this work they first read together the saga selected; then Magnússon wrote out a translation, and on the basis of this draft Morris produced a new rendering; this version was revised by Magnússon, and Morris in turn passed judgment on Magnússon’s alterations; the manuscript then went to the printer; finally a few more changes were made while the work was being printed. When they prepared their later translations, Morris took Magnússon’s literal draft and made the changes he wanted directly on these sheets, instead of writing out an entirely new version; during this stage of the work the two collaborators met for discussion of troublesome passages; Magnússon’s original draft with Morris’s alterations was sent then to the printer, but before the text was put into final form, a few more changes were made. Inasmuch as all the manuscripts of Icelandic translations that are in Morris’s hand are of sagas that were turned into English in the late 1860’s and the 1870’s, and all the manuscripts in which the original rendering has been written out by Magnússon and the changes

[397]
have been made by Morris are of sagas that were translated in the 1890’s, it seems fairly safe to assume that the first method described above was used in preparing all the translations that were produced from 1868 to the time when Morris gave up his literary activities for public life late in the 1870’s, and that the second procedure was followed in all the saga-translating done in the 1890’s, after Morris’s return to literature.14

Part II: Morris as a Mature Translator of Old Norse

Far more important and much more complex than the question of Morris’s and Magnússon’s method of translation, is the question of Morris’s principles of translation. So far as I know, Morris never wrote out any direct statement of his aims as a translator; however from those manuscripts in which Magnússon produced the original rendering and Morris made his alterations directly on the same sheets, we can ascertain fairly definitely, by analyzing these changes, just what he was striving for. With this purpose in mind I have examined very carefully all the alterations that Morris made in the first half of Magnússon’s translation of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs, one of the last of

[398]
the Heimskringla sagas.15 The manuscript containing this rendering consists of forty-six folio leaves, with Magnússon’s original draft on the right-hand page and with Morris’s revisions of the prose on the same side and his verse renderings of the “vísur” on the left-hand page, just as I have described above. My reason for choosing this manuscript as the basis of my investigation of Morris’s principles of translation is that it is extremely well suited for such a study, in view of the fact that the rendering contained in this manuscript was prepared in the 1890’s, when Morris was a mature translator of Old Norse, thoroughly acquainted with the language and with fully developed ideas as to the form which he considered proper for an English version of the Icelandic sagas.16 In fact, the manuscript of the translation of that part of the Heimskringla in which this saga is included was once cited by Magnússon as “a particularly safe, indeed an indispensable basis” for a study of Morris as a translator of Old Norse; Magnússon wrote,

Among the literary remains of Willaim Morris the MS on which the second and third vols. of Snorri Sturlusion’s Heimskringla (being the fourth and fifth vols of the Saga Library) are based forms a particularly save, indeed an indispensable basis whereon the future criticism of the great man’s relation to old northern literature is to be based….

The interest of this record of Morris’ literary activity lies in the method adopted by him for the purpose of putting his own stamp on the style of the translation of Snorri Sturluson’s work.17

The complete results of this study of the first part of the

[399]

manuscripts translation of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs are presented in Appendix I. I have there first reproduced the test of the translation, placing on the left-hand page Magnússon’s original draft and on the right-hand page Morris’s revised version. I have then listed, first all the changes that Morris made in the prose of Magnússon’s rendering of the first half of the saga, secondly, the alterations he made in the “vísur,” thirdly, the revisions Morris and Magnússon both made in their own work, and lastly, the words and expressions which appear in the printed text in a different form from that in the final manuscript version and which must have been altered in the proofreading; in each case I have classified the changes according to the reasons for which they seem to have been made.

In the vast majority of cases, the motives which lay behind Morris’s alterations in Magnússon’s draft translation can be determined with a fair degree of certainty. Thus, if we analyze the changes Morris made in the prose of Magnússon’s rendering, as I have done in Part B of Appendix I, we find that it is clear that in a large group of alterations Morris was striving to bring the translation closer to the original, in another group he was aiming to give the rendering a suitable tone, and in a third group he was simply endeavoring to improve the quality of the language, correcting minor mistakes and awkward constructions which were the result either of Magnússon’s too close adherence to the text or of his lack of complete familiarity with English usage. We also find that in an number of changes Morris altered the form of proper nouns, the reason for these changes evidently being, as I shall show later, that he sometimes disagreed with Magnússon as to how

[400]

an Old Norse namany certainty Morris’s exact motive; in other cases it is impossible even to suggest likely reasons. These alterations I have listed in the Appendix under the heading “Miscellaneous Changes.”

The largest and by all means the most important group of alterations that Morris made in the prose of Magnússon’s translation of the first half of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs is the first one mentioned above – namely, the group of changes in which Morris seems to be seeking to bring the rendering closer to the original; in the work examined, 1007 alterations – more that sixty per cent of the total 1582 – can be safely ascribed to this motive. These 1007 changes fall into three classes. In the first one, consisting of 401 alterations, Morris seems to have been solely or primarily concerned with reproducing more literally the meaning or substance of the Old Norse; in the second class, which is made up of 232 changes, he was apparently endeavoring to imitate important features of the style of the sagas; in the third class, to which 374 alterations belong, he appears to have been trying to reproduce more closely the character of the diction of the original.

I shall first discuss those changes which fall into the first of these three classes. The great majority of these revisions, it must be admitted, are comparatively unimportant, for, as is to be expected, Magnússon’s rendering is very literal and mistakes

[401]
in translation are extremely rare in his work. Morris seems to have been possessed with a passion for reproducing the substance of his original as exactly as possible, and he appears to have been tireless in making alterations for this purpose even though his changes in many cases had no perceptible effect on the meaning of a passage and did not reproduce the form of the Old Norse more faithfully. In a number of these revisions little or nothing seems to be gained, and his effort appears to be wasted. In order to show how painstaking Morris was in his desire for fidelity to the substance of the original, I have divided these alterations into two groups, the first one consisting of revisions of this type which involve major sentence elements and the second one being made up of changes which deal with minor parts of speech, such as articles, prepositions, demonstratives, and connectives.

As I have already stated, of the 1007 alterations in which Morris was apparently striving to bring the translation closer to the Old Norse, 401 or about forty per cent of the total, are devoted primarily to the more exact reproduction of the sense or substance of the original.18 Of these 401 changes, 294 involve major sentence elements.19 Perhaps the most important of these are the 36 alterations in which he inserted words or phrases that Magnússon had omitted. Nine of these revisions, however, consist simply of the insertion of the adverb “then” in imitation of the Old Norse use of “pá” at the beginning of the main clause of a sentence when an inverted clause stands first;20 note, for example,

[402]
the following changes:

XIV, 16-7, And when King Sigurd came to                             670, 22-4, En er Si-
Sleswick in Denmark Earl Eilif gave him a                              gurðr konungr kom í
glorious banquet: And when King Sigurd                                Slésvík á Danmörk, pá
came to Sleswick in Denmark then Earl Eilif                           veitti Eilifr jarl
gave him a glorious banquet21                                                     honum dýrliga veizlu
XXII, 23-4, Now when things had come to                             676, 34-677, 1, Ok
such a pass…, he went to see King Ey-                                               er í pat efni var komit
stein: Now when things had come to such a                            …, pá ferr hann á fund
pass…, then fares he to find King Eystein                               Eysteins konungs

This use of “pá” is of course entirely normal in Old Norse, but the use of “then” in English in such a position is considered redundant and therefore undesirable. The other 27 alterations of this type are devoted to the insertion of more important sentence elements, such as nouns, adjectives, verbs, and even phrases, as in the following cases:22

XVIII, 17, What the matter is I may not tell: What it is, lord, I may not tell out
XXIII, 98-9, at the Thing of Ere: at the Ere-Thing in Nidoyce
672, 2930, pat sem er, herra! má ek ekki frá segja
678, 29, á Eyrapingi í Niðarósi

These revisions, unlike the ones just considered, are entirely justified, and they are on the whole not objectionable, for in only a few cases is the resulting translation awkward; in none of these changes, however, does Morris’s insertion have an important effect upon the meaning of the passage involved.

In 10 of the alterations that Morris made for the sake of greater exactness he revived an Old and Middle English construction – namely, the use of an active infinitive with the verb “to let” in the sense of “to cause.”23 This construction occurs frequently in the Old Norse, but Morris’s use of it in the English translation

[403]
is extremely awkward, as the following examples show:

IV, 6-7, he should let market be holden:                        662, 29-30, skyldi jarl
the earl should let set market                                         láta setja…torg
XII, 13, then the kaiser had pall spread                         668, 28-9, pá lét kei-
over all the streets: Then let the kaiser                                    sarinn breiða pell um
spread pall over all the streets                                       öll stræti

A very large number of the changes that Morris made in order to render more literally the substance of his text are concerned with the reproduction of the word order found in the original. As I shall show later, Morris made a number of revisions in which he imitated the Old Norse order of words when the normal word order had been disrupted for the purpose of giving emphasis to certain words or phrases: such alterations are extremely important, for they serve to reproduce a feature of the style of the original. The changes that are not to be considered, however, are of little significance, for the word order imitated in them has no stylistic value. About half of them, for example – 51 of the total 100, to be exact – are devoted to the imitation of the Old Norse inversion of subject and verb in sentences in which adjectival or adverbial modifiers or the object are placed first.24 Old Norse usage demanded the inversion of the subject and verb in such sentences, but this departure from the normal word order in English is very awkward. In fact, Morris’s careful reproduction of this peculiarity of Old Norse word order is to a large extent responsible for the artificiality and very un-English character of the translation. Note, for example, the following alterations:

III, 2-3, Four winters after the fall of King Magnus, King Sigurd went with his company away from Norway, having sixty ships: Four winters after the fall of King Magnus, fared King Sigurd his folk away from Norway; then had he sixty ships
662, 6, Fjórum vetrum eptir fall Magnús konungs, fór Sigurðr konungr liði sínu or Noregi; pá hafði hann 60 skipa

[404]

VI, 22, Then King Sigurd cast about for a stratagem: Then sought King Sigurd a rede thereto
664, 30, pá leitaði Sigurðr konungr sér ráða

Some of the changes even make the translation misleading:

IX, 9-10, Another daughter of King William the Duke of Cyprus had for wife: Another daughter of King William had the Duke of Cyprus
666, 23-4, Aðra dóttur Vilhjálms konungs átti hertogi af Kípr

In the Old Norse the case endings make it clear that “hertogi” is the subject of the verb and “aðro dóttur” the object even though the order of words is inverted; in Morris’s English rendering, however, “daughter” appears to be the subject.

In the other 49 alterations in which he reproduced more exactly the word order of the original, he did not imitate any special Old Norse usage;25 here he simply rearranged the words in Magnússon’s translation in order to conform to the order of words found in the saga, even though that order had no particular significance. On the whole these revisions neither impair nor improve the rendering. In only a few cases are the results of these alterations awkward. The following changes may serve as examples:

XI, 17-8, And when the kings had besieged              667, 30-1, Ok pá er    
the town for a little while : And when the                  peir konungarnir hőfðu
kings had a little while set before the                        litla hríð setit um
town                                                                      borgina
XXII, 95-6, I bring forward with witnesses                678, 26-7, flyt ek
the fact : I bring forth that case with                        mál pat með vitnum
witnesses                                                               fram

The remaining 148 revisions in which Morris reproduced more literally the substance or form of the Old Norse are of a miscellaneous nature.26 Most of them are unimportant, but in two cases he corrected translations by Magnússon that were inaccurate. In one passage Magnússon had failed to notice the particular sense

[405]

in which the verb “skrifa” was used:

XII, 38-40, Many ancient tidings are paint-               669, 17-9, Eru þar
ed there, “Æsir,” Volsungs, Giukungs, all                   skrifuð margskonar forn-
done in copper and metal : There are car-                tiðindi, Æsir, Vőlsungar,
ven many ancient tidings, the Ases, the                   Gjúkungar, gert af kopar
Volsungs, the Giukungs, done of copper and             ok málmi
metal

The past participle “skrifuð” can of course mean “painted,” but in view of the fact that it is used with the phrase “gert af kopar ok malmi,” it must here be employed in the sense of “carven.” In another passage Magnússon had omitted a pronoun, evidently through mere inadvertence, and had consequently given the wrong meaning to a sentence; Morris revised the sentence so that it conveyed the right sense, but he did not preserve the form of the Old Norse sentence:

XIV, 18-20, In Heathby he met Nicolas the              670, 25-7, Í Heiðabý
King of the Danes and gave him an exceeding         fann hann Nikolás Dana-
good cheer and ment himself with north into           konung, ok fagnaði hann
Jutland and gave him a ship : in Heathby he            honum afarvel, ok fylgði
met Nicolas the Dane-king who welcomed him         honum sjálfr norðr á
full well, and himself followed him north                  Jótland, ok gaf honum
into Jutland, and gave him a ship                            skip

In a few other changes of this type it must be admitted that although Magnússon’s version is not erroneous, Morris’s rendering brings out more completely the force of the original; note, for example, the following alterations:

XVIII, 36, Drop we that matter : Turn we             673, 13-4, Hverfum
thence                                                               þar frá
XX, 4-5, This his counsellors and friends               674, 15-6, þat þótti
and all the court deemed a sore trouble :             ráðamőnnum pungent, ok
That seemed heavy to the counsellors and            vinum hans ok hirðinni
his friends and the court

In the great majority of these changes, however, the difference between Magnússon’s and Morris’s renderings is trivial; there is but little gain in exactness in such alterations as the following:

[406]

VI, 13-4, the rock over-hung the stone-             664, 23, bjargit skútti
wall : the berg shoved forth over the                  yfir steinvegginn fram
stone-wall
XI, 25, for a while : somewhile                          688, 10-1, nökkura hríð
XV, 2-3, King Eystein had done many things       671, 2-3, Eysteinn
in the land such as were useful (profitable):        konungr hafði mart gert
King Eystein had wrought much in the land         í landinu, þat er nyt-
such as was profitable                                       samligt var

Sometimes Morris was so eager to be as exact as possible that he was willing to make the translation awkward or even unintelligible in order to imitate the original in some trifling detail, as in these changes:

VI, 20-1, taunting them with want of heart :         664, 29, frýðu þeim
taunted them of their heart                                  hugar
XXII, 44-5, the case sorts under land’s-                 677, 17-8, sökin veit
law not under Birchisle-bylaw : the case                til landslaga, en eigi
looks to the land’s-law not to Birchisle-                  til Bjarkeyjarréttar
right

Finally, I should like to point out that quite apart from their effect on the translation, these alterations are interesting because many of them reveal in a clear and striking manner that Morris had by this time acquired a surprisingly exact and detailed knowledge of Old Norse. Often, for example, his revisions show that he was thoroughly acquainted with the inflectional forms of Old Norse and could easily identify a particular form. Thus, two of the changes just cited - those in XV, 2-3 and in VI, 20-21 - reveal that he recognized “mart” as a singular form and “hugar” as a genitive singular. Similarly, the three alterations listed below make it clear that Morris was thoroughly familiar with Old Norse inflections:

I, 13, of many sorts of tidings: of many          661, 15, margskonar
kind of tidings                                               tíðindi
XVI, 18, to turn : to turn them                       671, 31, snúast
XXII, 35, what the king misliked : what           677, 11, er konungi
misliked the king                                           mislíkar

Moreover, Morris often surprises us in these revisions by revealing

[407]
an astonishingly exact knowledge of the meaning of Old Norse words; in addition to the change of “sorts under” to “looks to” in XXII, 44-45, which I cited a few lines above, not the following alterations:

XX, 59, parting from life : parting from            675, 30, heimván
this world
XXII, 4, services : parts                                  676, 17, hluta
XXII, 18, in more earnest : more stoutly          676, 31, með meiri freku
XXII, 25, how heavily : with what mickle          677, 1-2, með hversu
fierceness                                                      miklu áfelli

To be sure, Morris’s knowledge of the exact or primary meaning of these words may in some cases simply be the result of his having consulted some dictionary of Old Norse; however although he may have occasionally done so, the mere fact that he questioned Magnússon’s rendering and took pains to turn to some dictionary to ascertain the precise meaning of a word indicates that he was at this time a serious-minded, careful student of Old Norse.

I have already stated that most of the changes that Morris made in major sentence elements for the sake of exactness are relatively unimportent; of even less significance are the majority of the alterations that he made for the purpose of following the Old Norse more closely in the use of minor parts of speech, such as articles, prepositions, demonstratives, and connectives. These revisions reveal in a striking manner how deeply concerned Morris was with reproducing his original as precisely as possible; in devoting time and attention to such changes as these, he was, of course, caring his zeal for exactness to excess.1

In 22 of the 107 alterations concerned with minor parts of

[408]
speech, Morris struck out, in certain expressions, definite or indefinite articles that Magnússon had introduced but which had been omitted in the original in accordance with the regular Old Norse usage.1 Needless to say, these changes are of practically no value; the gain in exactness which they bring about is only of the most trifling kind. Moreover, as is to be expected, most of these revisions have a very undesirable effect on the language of the translation. To be sure, in some cases the resulting translation. To be sure, in some cases the resulting translation is not objectionable, for the noun which the article modified in Magnússon’s version is used in a general sense or as a predicate substantive and the omission of the article is consequently permissible in English also:

I, 15-6, for it was said that in Mickle-                661, 16-7, var þat sagt,
garth the Northmen had any wealth to bless      at í Miklagarði féngu
themselves with : It was said that in                 Norðmenn fullsælu fjár
Micklegarth Northmen gat any wealth they
would to bless them withal
VIII, 3, At that time Rodger was a duke             666, 5, þar var pá
there : Then was Rodger duke there                  Roðgeirr hertogi

Most of these alterations, however, make the rendering seem very stilted and unnatural, as in the following cases:

I, 2-3, After the fall of King Magnus Bare-         661, 4-5, Eptir fall
leg his sons…took up the kingdom after            Magnús konungs berfœtts
him in Norway : After the fall of King Mag-        tóku synir hans konungdóm
nus Barefoot his sons…took up kingdom in         í Noregi
Norway
VII, 3, had a fight there : and there had            665, 28, ok átti þar
battle                                                              orrostu

The most numerous of the changes that Morris made in the form of minor parts of speech for the sake of exactness are those involving prepositions; there are 41 such alterations.2 In 29 of these revisions he changed the form of the preposition used, in 6 he omitted Magnússon’s preposition, and in 6 he added a preposition

[409]
that Magnússon had neglected to translate. Note, as examples, the three following changes:

XII, 39-40, done in copper : done of copper           669, 18, gert af kopar
IV, 7, all through the winter : all the winter            662, 30, allan vetrinn
XVIII, 56, enter my mind : come into my               673, 29, í hug koma
mind

As in the case of the alterations involving articles, most of these revisions result in only the slightest gain in exactness; of no significance are such changes, for example, as the following:

XI, 17-8, And when the kings had besieged           667, 30-1, Ok þá er
the town for a little while : And when the              þeir konungarnir höfðu
kings had a little while set before the                    litla hríð setit um
town                                                                   borgina
XV, 10, within the king’s garth : in the                   671, 10, í konungsgarði
king’s garth

Occasionally, however, these revisions do alter the sense in a very slight degree:

XX, 54-5, that his oversight will abide                 675, 25-6, at hans ásjá
with me : that his oversight will stand                 mun yfir mér standa
over me

Although these changes, like those concerned with articles, are of little or no importance, they are not so objectionable as the alterations involving articles, for in only a few cases do they make rendering awkward.

Less numerous are the revisions dealing with demonstratives, there being only 20 such changes.1 In 5 of these cases Morris added “that” in imitation of the text, 5 times he changed “it” to “that,” on 3 occasions he rejected “this” for “that,” and twice he replaced “the” with “this” or “that.” The other changes are of a miscellaneous nature. Like the revisions involving articles and prepositions, none of these alterations render the translation more exact in any important way. On the other hand, very few of

[410]
them impair the rendering; in fact, some of them actually improve the quality of the English. Note, for example, the following changes:

XIV, 23-4, The talk of men was that never           670, 29-30, Ok var þat
had there been a more glorious journey :            mál manna, at eigi hafi
And that was the talk of men, that never             verit farin meiri
had there been a more worshipful faring              virðingarför
XXII, 93-4, Then King Eystein searched the         678, 24-5, þá leitar
lawmen as to where in Norway were such            Eysteinn konungr við
Things as at which it was lawful : Then                lögmenn, hvar þau
seeks King Eystein of the lawmen where              þing eru í Noregi, at
those Things were in Norway whereat it was        …sé rétt
lawful

Finally, there are 24 alterations which Morris made for the purpose of following the Old Norse more closely in the use of connectives; 7 of them deal with relative pronouns, 8 with subordinating conjunctions, and 9 with coördinating conjunctions.1 The following revisions may be cited as specimens of these changes:

I, 18-9, be captain of what company should           661, 19-20, vera fyrir
betake itself : be captain of that folk                      því liði, er…gerðist
which should betake itself
XX, 31-2, even should the unravelling not              675, 2, þó at eigi
be : though the unravelling be not                         verði ráðit
XVIII, 8-9, wise, high-born and a scald :                672, 22, vitr ok ætt-
wise, and of great kin and a scald                          stórr ok skáld

These alterations do not have any important effect upon the sense of the translation, but they are not of such a trivial nature as the other changes involving minor parts of speech that we have considered. Moreover, as a rule they neither impair nor improve the quality of the English of the rendering.

As I have already stated several times, most of the revisions that Morris made in Magnússon’s draft in order to reproduce more literally the meaning or substance of his original are relatively

[411]
unimportant. To be sure, close adherence to the text is on the whole a commendable quality in a translation, and, as I have pointed out in the foregoing discussion, the cases are not numerous in which Morris carried his zeal for exactness to the point where his renderings became awkward and unidiomatic; however, the translation with which Magnússon had provided Morris was very literal and accurate, so that there was little or no need for Morris to devote his attention to making the rendering more exact and almost the only revisions of this nature that he could make were perforce concerned with insignificant details. Very important, however, are the alterations in which Morris sought to reproduce more faithfully, not the sense or substance, but the style of the original.

Before commenting upon this second class of revisions that Morris made for the sake of exactness, I should like to present a brief discussion of the chief characteristics of the Old Norse saga-style; with such an account before us, it will be easier to determine how far Morris succeeded in imitating in his translation the style of his original.

The outstanding features of the prose of the best Icelandic sagas are undoubtedly its extreme - at times, almost stern - simplicity, its directness, and its spontaneity. Never in these works is the language learned, artificial, ornate, or affected; the sagas

[412]
originated of course as oral compositions, and their language is in the main the language of everyday speech, - simple, concrete, fresh, and natural. Sometimes, especially in dialogue, the prose becomes colloquial or even racy, but usually the simplicity of expression is of a different type and gives the language a quiet dignity. To the casual reader of today the simplicity of the sagas seems artless or at times even naïve. Such is by no means the case, however, as closer examination shows; in fact, a simple, quiet, unpretentious style is by all means the hardest of all styles to employ successfully, and the undeniable charm and beauty of the homely, unadorned prose of the sagas is clearly the result only of the extremely fine taste of the saga-men. The art of the sagas is not always apparent, for it is the kind of art which conceals art.

What form does the simplicity and directness of the sagas take? One of the qualities of Icelandic prose which a modern reader of the sagas notices at once is the terseness and compactness of expression. There never seems to be an unnecessary word used in an Old Norse story. Thus, in the best Icelandic sagas we find a minimum number of adjectives introduced; only those descriptive words are used which are strictly necessary for the hearer’s or reader’s correct interpretation of the characters and actions described, adjectives and descriptions never being inserted merely for adornment. Similarly, figures of speech are very sparingly used; the few figures that we do find are usually common ones which have lost whatever colorful and startling effect they may once have had and which therefore blend readily with the subdued tone of the whole. Furthermore, we never find strictly unessential

[413]
words or phrases added simply for the sake of making the thought sequence clearer or the rhythm of the sentence smoother, as is so often done in modern prose; as a result the rhythm of the language tends to be slow, heavy, and sometimes a little rough and halting. Moreover, the desire for simplicity is sometimes carried so far that not only are unimportant words and expressions excluded, but all attempts to heighten the artistic effect of a passage by the use of carefully chosen words that are concrete, specific, and therefore colorful and vivid are also avoided, and plain, colorless, and neutral words employed instead; occasionally the language used is so plain that the style may even be described as bald.

As is to be expected, this terseness, restraint, and directness of expression gives a great deal of vigor, virility, and force to the prose; this effect is frequently heightened by the skillful arrangement of the words within a sentence. As Finnur Jónsson points out in his discussion of the saga-style in Den Oldnorske og Cidislandske Litteraturs Historie, the order of words is usually that of subject, verb, and object, as in most modern languages; but there was a great deal of freedom permitted in the Old Norse in the arrangement of words, and very often we find the normal order rejected and the words so placed that the important ones will receive the main sentence accents. The significant words may stand first, as in “dunði þá blóðit um hann allan,” or last, as in “þeir lőgðu til fund,” or at those points within a sentence where the accent falls, as in “kveð ek yðr þeira orða allra, er yðr skylda lög til um at bera.”1

[414]
Finally, when we examine the structure of Old Norse prose, we find here also, as in the choice of words, an extreme simplicity. Usually the sentences are short, and when long sentences do occur, they almost always consist of a number of independent clauses, only loosely connected, if at all. Very seldom do we meet with well-knit sentences in which there is one main statement and one or more dependent clauses, with the relation of each dependent clause to the main statement definitely indicated by the introductory conjunction. Such carefully developed sentences are found only in a literary style; the sagas originated, as I have already stated, as spoken tales, and their loose sentence structure is of course one of the most obvious results of this fact. Other usages common in Old Norse prose are likewise to be traced to the peculiar origin of the sagas. Thus, we frequently find a certain carelessness in the use of connectives. Just as in a compound sentence the various clauses are often left standing isolated with no indication of the bearing that one has upon another, so one sentence very frequently follows another without any kind of connective to show the relation of this particular statement to the preceding one; as Richard Heinzel says in his “Bescheibung der isländischen Saga,” “Unzähligemal müssten wir in einer fliessenden modernen Uebersetzung ein, auch, da, dann, wider, und zwar, eben, aber, dagegen. denn, dadurch, davor, darauf usw. einschieben….”1 Again, we seldom find any consistency in the use of tenses; the verbs often shift from the past to the present and back again to the past, even in the same passage, without any attempt at uniformity whatsoever. Sometimes even the grammatical construction changes in the course

[415]
of a sentence; cases of anacolouthon are not all rare. Thus, we frequently find that a statement begun as indirect discourse breaks abruptly, without any introductory words, into direct discourse in the middle of a sentence. Finally, we occasionally come across a pronoun that has been carelessly used without any definite antecedent expressed to which it can refer.1

When we examine the revisions that Morris made in the first half of Magnússon’s rendering of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs, we find that in a great number of changes - in 232, to be exact - the translation is so altered that it reproduces some of the features of the safa-style that have just been discussed.2 It is of course possible that Morris made these revisions, not for the express purpose of imitating these characteristics of

[416]
Old Norse prose, but merely for the sake of rendering his translation as literal as possible. As I have said before, Morris never put into writing any definite statement of his aims as a translator, and the mere study of the manuscript does not always reveal the exact motive he had for making certain changes; however, it is difficult to believe that Morris, who had read a truly great number of sagas with keen appreciation, had not also analyzed their style and that he was not in these alterations deliberately attempting to carry over into his own translation something of the flavor of the original.

As I have already stated, one of the most striking features of the Old Norse saga style is its terseness. The tendency to use the very minimum number of descriptive adjectives necessary Morris did not have any opportunity to imitate, for Magnússon’s rendering was extremely literal and carefully reproduced this characteristic of Old Norse prose.1 On several occasions, however, we find that Magnússon had departed from his original and had introduced figures of speech not present in the Old Norse; in ten changes in the pages examined Morris rejected such figures and substituted literal renderings of the text, as, for example, in the following revisions:2

XVIII, 49-50, to hit upon what you want :            673, 24, eptir at leita
to seek after this
XXII, 25-6, King Sigurd fell on him for                 677, 2, Sigurðr konungr
having this matter out : King Sigurd would          vildi heimta málit af
carry on the case against him                             honum

Needless to say, these alterations are entirely justified, and help

[417]
to reproduce the tone of the original.

Moreover, in a number of cases Magnússon had departed from his text and had introduced words or phrases, not in the original, in order to make the thought sequence clearer or the rhythm of the sequence smoother; in 55 of the revisions that Morris made in Maggnússon’s draft, he carefully excluded such words.1 Most of these changes are concerned with the removal of adverbs and phrases, 17 adverbs being struck out and 15 phrases; the following alterations are good examples of these revisions:

IV, 13, and had it all brought down to his            663, 2-3, ok lét flytja
ships : and let flit it all to his ships                     til skipa sinna
XVII, 51, but there is one thing still                    673, 25, en einn er
left : But there is one thing left                          nú hlutr eptir
I, 2-3, After the fall of King Magnus Bare-           661, 4-5, Eptir fall
leg his sons…took up the kingdom after              Magnús konungs berfœtts
him in Norway : After the fall of King Mag-          tóku synir hans konung-
nus Barefoot his sons…took up kingdom in          dóm í Noregi
Norway
IV, 11-2, having but a small band with him:        663, 1, því at hann
whereas he had but a little band                        hafði lítit lið

The other changes of this type are of a miscellaneous nature; in these revisions we find nouns, intensive pronouns, adjectives, infinitives, participles, finite forms of the verb and noun clauses excluded. Ten of the alterations listen in this class call for special comment, for in these cases Morris did not actually strike out words which Magnússon had insertent but he replaced clauses, phrases, and nouns with minor words, such as pronouns, demonstratives, and adverbs;2 I have placed these changes in the group now under discussion because it seems to me almost certain that he made these alterations because he wanted to follow the Old Norse exactly

[418]
by omitting Magnússon’s word or expression entirely, but found that he could not do so without making the translation unduly awkward and therefore decided to replace the clause, phrase, or noun Magnússon had introduced with some unimportant, unobtrusive word, feeling that in so doing he brought the rendering closer to the tone of the original. These revisions, it seems to me, reveal in a striking way how eager Morris was to reproduce the Old Norse with fidelity. Note, as examples, the following alterations:

XVIII, 49-50, Now it becomes hard indeed to           673, 23-4, Vandast mér
hit upon what you want : Now it becomes of            nu eptir at leita
the hardest to seek after this
XXII, 49-50, each having his own thoughts              677, 21-2, þótti sinn
on the matter : each of them thought hereof            veg hvárum þeira
his own way

Like the changes devoted to the rejection of figures of speech, these revisions in which Morris struck out unessential words that Magnússon had introduced are extremely significant, for they play an important part in the reproduction of the terseness and bluntness of the saga.

In addition to the alterations just discussed, MNorris made another large group of changes for the apparent purpose of imitating the conciseness and restraint of the Old Norse; in 47 of these 61 revisions he rejected phrases or weak circumlocutions introduced by Magnússon and used instead one, simple, direct word,1 and in the other 14 alterations he replaced expressions consisting of a noun and a phrase with constructions made up of a noun and an adjective or a noun and a possessive.2 As the following specimens show, both types of revision, but especially the first, are of the greatest value in giving the translation the conciseness, directness and

[419]
force of the original and in making the rhythm of the language slow, heavy and deliberate as in the saga:

X, 9, King Sigurd tarried for a very long               667, 12, Sigurðr konungr
time in Jerusalem land : King Sigurd dwelt           dvaldist mjök lengi á
much long in Jerusalem land                               Jórsalalandi
XI, 19-20, and the kings became the owners        667, 31-2, ok eignuðust
of the town and their armies of the rest of            konungarnir borgina, en
the booty : and the kings gat the town but           liðsmenn annat herfang
their folk other booty
XIV, 17-8, and that was about the time of            670, 24-5, þat var um
midsummer : and that was midsummer season    miðsumars skeið

In very few cases do these changes in any way impair the quality of the language of the rendering. It should also be noted that the 47 alterations included in the first part of this group are not the only revisions such which impart terseness to the translation through the replacement of a phrase with one word; in some of the changes which Morris seems primarily to have made for other reasons and which I have accordingly listed under different headings, he secured the same effect in the same way. Thus, a number of the alterations in which he imitated the compound word structure of the original, some of the revisions in which he introduced cognates of the words used in the Old Norse, and a few of the changes in which he cancelled figures of speech that Magnússon had inserted, also reproduce the compactness and directness of the saga. Such is the case with the following alterations, for example:

III, 7, So says Einar son of Skuli : so               662, 15, Svá segir
says Einar Skulison                                        Einarr Skúlason
IV, 7, for the purchase of victuals : for             662, 30, til matkaupa
meatcheaping
XI, 20, the whole of the town : all the              667, 33, alla borgina
town
VI, 22, Then King Sigur cast about for a           664, 30, þá leitaði
stratagem : Then sought King Sigurd a rede     Sigurðr konungr sér
thereto                                                          ráða

Finally, there are 12 other revisions by which Morris seems to have endeavored to carry over into his translation the simplicity

[420]
and plainness of the Old Norse prose. In 3 of these he replaced specific, colorful, and vivid verbs with plain, colorless, and neutral words;1 in the other 9 he omitted various intensives that Magnússon had inserted.2 The following examples show the effect that these alterations had upon the tone of the rendering:

VI, 36, some rushed upon the weapons :               665, 8-9, sumir géngu
some went onto the weapons                                á vápn
VIII, 5, A most glorious cheer was there :              666, 7-8, þar var
There was a dear welcome                                    dýrligr fagnaðr

I have already pointed out that the features just discussed give the prose of the sagas vigor and directness, but that they are not the only qualities which have this effect; in the best sagas we find that the arrangement of the words in a sentence is often used as a means of giving added force to the style, the most significant words being placed in important positions, as at the beginning or end of a sentence or clause or at those points within a clause where the chief sentence accents fall. In the section of the manuscript examined there are 33 changes in which Morris reproduced or imitated such cases of unusual and therefore emphatic word order.3 Most of these alterations not only help to give that translation the tone of the saga but also improve the English of the rendering, because the force and clarity imparted to the Old Norse by the arrangement of words Morris imitated are usually just as effective in the English version.

In some of these revisions Morris imitated Snorri’s device of placing an important word first in the sentence, as in the following case:

[421]

XX, 9, It is a sore matter to talk about :               674, 19, Vant er at
Hard is it to talk about                                        rœðal

Occasionally Morris, like Snorri, arranged the words so that the significant ones came last in a sentence or in a particular clause:

XX, 35-6, then meseemed the holy King Olaf               675, 5-6, þá sýndist
our kinsman walked out of the church : then                mér sem géngi út or
meseemed walked out of the church the holy               kirkjunni hinn helgi
King Olaf our kinsman                                                Olafr konungr frændi várr

We also find Snorri placing one important word at the beginning of a clause and another at the end; in a few cases Morris imitated this order carefully, as here:

XX, 64, Well and wisely areded : Well is it               675, 33-4, Vel er
areded, and wisely                                                ráðit ok vitrliga

Moreover, Morris sometimes followed Snorri in putting a word that needed emphasis at that point within a clause where it would receive one of the main sentence accents:

XXII, 99-100, That is what I thought must               678, 30, þat hugða ek
be : That deemed I that so it would be                     at svá mundi vera

In one or two cases it seems that Morris realized that Snorri had placed certain words in positions where they would be stressed but found that he could not reproduce this order and so put these words at other emphatic points in the sentence. In the following passage, for example, it is clear from the context that “eigi” and “síðr” are the important words, for the saga relates that when King Sigurd had invited the Kaiser and the Queen to a feast during his visit to Micklegarth, he discovered at the last moment that there was no firewood available in the town, and he exclaimed, “Vitit nú, ef þér fáit valhntr, eigi munum vér þeim síðr kunna at elda.” Morris, however, could not separate these two words in this way, putting “not” at the beginning and “less” where it would receive

[422]
the sentence accent, and so he placed both words at the head of the clause:

XIII, 11-2, we shall know no less how to              669, 33-4, eigi munum
make fire of them : no less shall we can to           vér þeim síðr kunna at
make fire of them                                               elda

Finally, we find in the first half of the manuscript translation of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs 61 revisions in which Morris seems to have sought to reproduce in his rendering the style of the original through the imitation of peculiarities in the syntax of the sagas, - peculiarities which were in the main the result of the origin of the sagas as oral compositions.1 As I have already pointed out in my general discussion of the saga style, one of the most prominent features of Old Norse prose is the looseness of its sentence structure; instead of carefully constructed sentences in which the main idea is placed in the independent clause and the subordinate statements are put in dependent clauses or phrases, the relations of one clause to another being carefully indicated through the use of precise connectives, we find in the Old Norse either short, simple sentence or long sentences which are simply made up of a series of independent statements, with little or no attempt made to secure coherence by the proper subordination of one clause to another and by the use of exact connectives. In 41 of the 61 changes in the group now to be considered, Morris carefully and effectively reproduced this peculiar looseness of construction found in Old Norse prose.2

In 18 of these revisions he replaced various dependent constructions with independent clauses in imitation of the Old Norse.

[423]
Thus, in 4 alterations he struck out dependent clauses and used instead independent clauses,1 in 3 changes he turned phrases introduced by a present participle into independent clauses,2 in 6 revisions he cancelled absolute participial phrases and inserted independent clauses in their place,3 once he replaced a noun and a relative clause with an independent clause,4 once he rejected a noun and a past participle in favor of an independent clause,5 once he turned a past participle with a verb understood unto an independent clause,6 and in 2 alterations he transformed a simple sentence with a compound verb into a compound sentence by the insertion of another subject.7 The 7 changes listed below will serve as examples of these 7 types of revision:

XII, 14-5, where…the finest halls…are :          668, 29-30, þar eru…
there are…the noblest halls                            hallir hinar ágæztu
III, 3, having sixty ships : then had he           662, 7-8, þá hafði
sixty ships                                                    hann 60 skipa
I, 3-4, Eystein having the northernmost          661, 5-6, hafði Eysteinn
part of the land : Eystein had the northern      hinn nørðra hlut lands
deal of the land
XI, 16, a town that was heathen : that burg    667, 29, sú borg var
was heathen                                                 heiðin
XV, 11, a house wrought with right great         671, 11, ok var þat hús
care : and that house was of right much          allmjök vandat
care done
XX, 64, Well and wisely areded : Well is it        675, 33-4, Vel er ráðit
areded, and wisely                                         ok vitrliga
XV, 3-5, He set up a cloister for monks…;         671, 4-5, Hann hóf munk-
and gave much wealth thereto : He set up a     lífi…, ok lagði hann
monk-cloister…; and thereto he laid mic-          þar mikit fé til
kle wealth

[424]
In the other 23 alterations in this group Morris imitated in other ways the looseness of the sentence structure in the Old Norse. In 12 of these changes he turned a subordinate clause or a participial phrase into part of the compound predicate in the main clause, as here:1

XXII, 124-6, And therewith he turned away…,             679, 16-8, Ok sneri nú
and had the tilts struck and brought all                      á brott…, ok lét
the host out to the Holm, where he had a                  fœra af tjöld, ok lagði
Thing and told the host : And he turns away              liðinu öllu út til Hólms,
now…, and let strike the tilts and laid                         átti þar þing, ok sagði
all the host out to the Holm, and held a                      svá liðinu
Thing there, and told the host
VI, 14-5, The heathens guarded the stone-                 664, 24-5, Heiðingjar
wall being nothing frightened by the weap-                 vörðu steinvegginn ok
the stone-wall and were nought adrad of the               Norðmanna
weapons of the Northmen

In 7 of the other revisions he replaced prepositional phrases with dependent clauses,2 in 2 he rejected past participles in favor of dependent clauses,3 and in 2 he struck out infinitives and used instead dependent clauses.4 Note, as examples, the following alterations:

IV, 16, certain pirates, out on plunder-              663, 5-6, víkingar
ing, came to meet him : certain vikings             nökkurir, þeir er fóru
who were faring on war-catch came to meet      at herfangi, kómu í
him                                                                móti honum
XI, 24-5, to a certain island called Cy-               668, 9-10, til eyjar
prus : to that island which hight Cyprus             þeirar, er Kípr heitir
XVI, 18, prayed him to be allowed to                 671, 31, báðu hann, at
bade him that they would to turn them to          þeir vildu snúast til
fealty                                                              hlýðni

All these changes are extremely significant, but of greatest importance are undoubtedly the six alterations in which Morris avoided absolute participial phrases; constructions of that type

[425]
occur extremely rarely in the Old Norse,1 and their use in an English translation gives a literary and learned tone to the rendering which is entirely unsuitable. Moreover, the use of participles to introduce phrases is very uncommon in the Old Norse,2 and although such phrases are not so objectionable in an English translation as absolute participial constructions, the changes in which Morris rejected participial phrases are also of great value for helping to impart the proper tone to the rendering.

I have already called attention to the fact that the prose of the sagas lacks coherence not only because of the looseness of the structure but also because of the careless use of connectives. Often, although there is a distinct need for them, connectives between sentences or between the clauses within a sentence are entirely omitted; frequently when connectives are introduced, vague words are used which do not make clear the exact relation of one sentence or clause to another. In the manuscript material examined, Morris made 10 revisions in which he reproduced this careless use of connectives.3 In 6 of these he removed connecting particles which are not in the text but which Magnússon had added in order to make the thought sequence clearer;4 by so doing he effectively imitated the abruptness of transition and the resulting terseness and directness so common in the Old Norse. Note, as examples, the following changes:

XIII, 13, So they went and got as much as           669, 34-670, 1, þeir
they wanted : They fared and got so much as       forú ok féngu svá mikit,
they would                                                         sem þeir vildu
XVIII, 16, but tell me what is the matter :            672, 29, seg mér, hvat er
tell me what is it

[426]
In the other 4 alterations of this type Morris rendered more exactly the connectives used, rejecting the precise connectives Magnússon had introduced and interesting in their place the vague words found in the original:

XVI, 5, Now : But                   671, 18, En
XVIII, 13, for : But                 672, 26, en
XXII, 78, Thus : And               678, 11, Ok
XXII, 116, but : and                679, 9, ok

These changes make the passages of the translation in which they occur vague and incoherent; in so doing, they are in the main reproducing the character of the original.

Another characteristic of the Old Norse saga style, as I have already pointed out, is a decided inconsistency in the use of tenses; in the course of a narrative we frequently find historical presents alternating abruptly with past tenses. In the section of the translation that I have studied, there are nine cases in which Morris changed past tenses in Magnússon’s version to presents, thus imitating the careless mixture of tenses found in the original.1 Note, as examples, the alterations in verb forms in the following passage:

XXII, 89-93, King Eystein arrayed himself           678, 20-4, Eysteinn
…, and sought to the Thing, and then he             konungr bjóst…, ok
over took…plaint and defence in the case.           sœkir til þingsins; hann
At this Thing both sides brought their                 tekr þá…sókn ok vörn…
pleadings forward. Then King Eystein                 Á þessu þingi fluttu
searched : King Eystein arrayed himself…,          hvárirtveggju fram sín
and seeks to the Thing. He took then…               mál. Þa leitar Eysteinn
plaint and defence in the case. At this                konungr
Thing both sides flitted forth their case.
Then seeks King Eystein2

In the manuscript translation that I have examined I have not found any revisions devoted to the imitation of cases of anacolu-

[427]
thon occuring in the text. There are a number of passages in the original in which indirect discourse breaks abruptly into direct,1 but these cases of the mixture of two different constructions Magnússon had already reproduced in his own rendering.

Finally, I should like to point out that there is one change in which Morris imitated another characteristic of the Old Norse saga style which led to incoherence - namely, the frequent use of pronouns without definite antecedents expressed:

XIV, 18-21, In Heathby he met Nicolas the              670, 25-8, Í Heiðbý
King of the Danes and gave him an exceeding         fann hann Nikolás Dana-
good cheer and went himself with north into           konung, ok fagnaði hann
Jutland and gave him a ship with all out-                honum afarvel, ok fylgði
fit the which King Sigurd took over to Nor-              honum sjálfr norðr á
way : In Heathby he met Nicolas the Dane-            Jótland, ok gaf honum
king who welcomed him full well, and him-             skip með öllum búnaði,
self followed him north into Jutland, and                 þat er hann hafði í
gave him a ship with all dight which he had            Noreg
into Norway

In Morris’s translation, as in the original, the antecedent of “he” in the last clause of this sentence is not clear, for the pronoun can refer either to “Nicolas,” who is mentioned at the beginning of the sentence, or to “Sigurd,” who is named in the preceding sentence.

The group of revisions which I have just finished discussing is of course exceedingly important, for it is through the changes of this type that Morris succeeded in giving the translation something of the charm and flavor of the Old Norse narrative. To be completely successful, a translation should of course not only reproduce literally and correctly the substance of the original, but it should also imitate as far as possible the spirit and tone of its text. For the exactness and accuracy of The Saga Library ren-

[428]
dering of the Sigurðar saga Jórsalafara, Eysteins ok Ólafs Magnússon was chiefly responsible, as I have already pointed out, although Morris did make some important contributions to this feature of the work; for the extent to which the translation reproduces the outstanding characteristics of style of the Old Norse story, we must, however, give most of the credit by far to Morris.

In addition to the changes which I have listed in the two large groups which I have commented upon so far - the first group being made up of revisions in which Morris sought to reproduce the substance of the original more accurately and the second one consisting of alterations which imitate stylistic features of the Old Norse -, there are two types of changes which do not completely or definitely fall into either of these two groups but which Morris almost certainly made because he felt that he was in some way rendering his translation more exact thereby; these revisions are those in which he imitated the compound and derivative words common in the Old Norse and those in which he introduced cognates of the words used in the original.1 These changes are extremely numerous, 374 alterations, or decidedly more than one-fifth of the total number of revisions that Morris made in the section of the manuscript examined, falling into these two classes. Of these 374 changes 52 are concerned with the imitation of compound or derivative words, and 322 are devoted to the introduction of cognates of the Old Norse words.

As I just stated, Morris seems to have made these alterations for the purpose of rendering his translation more exact, but they are somewhat different in nature from the revisions of that type

[429]
that we have already considered. Except in rare cases these changes do not reproduce more exactly the substance of the original in any important respects, and they do not imitate specific stylistic peculiarities of the Old Norse. Occasionally, to be sure, some of the compound and derivative words Morris introduced, such as "all-clearly" and ''unfair" in place of "clearly enough" and "less fair'' for the Old Norse "allgløgt'' and "úfegra,”1 and some of his cognates, such as “harvest” and “winters” instead of “autumn” and “years” for the Old Norse “haustit” and “vetr,”2 do present more literal translations; occasionally, also, some of his compounds and derivatives such as "troth-oath'' and ''giftless" in place of ''oath of fealty'' and "without a gift" for the Old Norse “trúnaðar-eiða” and “gjaflaust,”3 and some of his cognates, such as “yearned” and “all” instead of “grew wistful of” and “the whole of” for the Old Norse “girntist” and “allan,”4 help to imitate the terseness and directness which, as we have seen, are marked characteristics of language of the sagas. Most of the compound and derivative words, however, that Morris used, such as “way-leader” and “onset” in place of “guide” and “raid” for the Old Norse “leið-toga” and “uppgöngu,”5 and the vast majority of the cognates he inserted, such as “fared,” “little," and ''much" as substitutes for "went,” "small," and ''great" for the Old Norse ''farit,” "lítit,"

[430]
and “mikit,”1 do not render the meaning of the original more literally in any appreciable way and do not reproduce stylistic features of the Old Norse; I have accordingly not placed changes introducing compounds, derivatives, or cognates in either of the two groups I have so far discussed. Nevertheless, as I have already stated and as I shall presently try to show, there can be little doubt that Morris made these alterations partly because he thought that they rendered his translation more faithful by giving it a certain tone and character closely akin to the spirit of the saga and partly because he felt that by using the same word forms or exactly the same words as those found in the text he was actually reproducing more exactly the substance of his original; and I have therefore classified these changes with the other revisions by which he sought to make his rendering more literal, placing, however, the alterations now under consideration in a separate group, for in these he was getting closer to the original in a rather different way.

In the case of the changes in which he introduced compound or derivative words, there is less doubt that Morris was seeking for exactness than in the case of the revisions in which he inserted cognates. ln fact, it is almost certain that in making the alterations of the first type, he was aiming to bring the translation closer to the original. In the first place, in using a compound or a derivative, whenever he found one ready at hand or could coin one, as a translation of a compound or a derivative in the text, he undoubtedly felt that by thus reproducing the word structure of the Old Norse he gave the language of his rendering something of the

[431]
nature and essence of the language of the saga. Moreover, in view of the fact that in his craving for absolute literalness of translation he made, as we have seen, a great number of insignificant, trivial changes, among them over one hundred in the form of articles, prepositions, demonstratives and connectives, for no other apparent reason but that he thought that he was thus reproducing the substance of the Old Norse more precisely, it is not unlikely that in using compounds and derivatives - even such compounds and derivatives as “war-catch,” “way-leader,” “unpeace,” and “unbrightness” in place of “plunder,” “guide,” “war,” and “gloom” for the Old Norse “herfang,” “leiðtoga,” “úfrið,” and “úbirta”1 - he felt that he was getting closer to the original not only by imitating the form of the words in the text but actually by reproducing the sense of these words more literally.

Similar motives very likely underlay the changes in which he introduced cognates of the Old Norse words to be translated, but the reasons for these alterations are decidedly less obvious. Such changes as “prayed" to “bade” for “báðu,'' ''thus” to "so" for ''sva,” and “fared” to “came'' for “kom”2 do not reproduce the word structure found in the original and cannot be said to render the meaning more exactly even in the most trivial way. Moreover, the question of Morris's reasons for his preference for cognates is further complicated by the fact that for many of the revisions in which he inserted cognates it is possible to suggest other motives besides the introduction of cognates.

Let us first consider the possibility of other reasons for

[432]
these changes. When we examine the cognates Morris introduced, we find that of these 322 words 179 are archaic, poetic, or other unusual sense.1 Morris may possibly have inserted these words for the sake of giving his translation an archaic tone; we shall see later that he did make a number of alterations for this very reason. Moreover, 43 of the 143 remaining cognates are words of Germanic origin and replace Romance words,2 and it may have been to bring about this change that he introduced these words; as I shall show later, this motive clearly underlay a number of revisions that Morris made. Furthermore, 64 of the remaining 100 cognates present more literal translations of the Old Norse,3 7 add terseness and directness to the rendering,4 3 form part of compound or derivative words which Morris seems to have used in imitation of compounds and derivatives in the original,5 and 4 improve the quality of the language of the translation.6 There are 22 cognates, however, which do not help the rendering in any of these ways;7 it is clear that Morris inserted these words simply because they were cognates, and the revisions in which these words were introduced show unmistakably that there was something about a cognate of an Old Norse word that made it to Morris the best possible translation of that word.

In view of this fact - that there are 22 changes in which Mor-

[433]
ris seems to have inserted English cognates of the Old Norse words solely because they were cognates - as well as for other reasons which I shall presently state, it seems to me almost certain that in the great majority, if not in all, of the 322 casas in which he introduced cognates it was his desire to use cognates that was the primary and real motive for the changes and that any other reasons he may have had were definitely secondary. In the first place it is of course obvious that in most cases he could have introduced archaisms, replaced Romance with Germanic words, reproduced the terseness of the Old Norse, used compounds and derivatives, and improved the English without necessarily using cognates. The only motive that could as a rule have forced him to use a cognate without his being interested in the word because it was a cognate was his desire for exactness, but, as I have already pointed out, there are a number of alterations introducing cognates which do not reproduce the sense of the original more literally in any appreciable degree. In the second place, although it is of course conceivable that these various motives that I have suggested were the real reasons for Morris's changes and that it was merely accidental that the words he used were cognates of the Old Norse ones, it is, however, extremely unlikely that such an exceedingly large number of cognates would have been inserted and that cognates would have been employed in almost every case in which a word of the same stem as the Old Norse original was to be found in Old, Middle, and New English if they were merely a by-product. Therefore, in view of these facts - that in 22 cases in which Morris inserted cognates no other reason for the alteration is apparent and that in the 300

[434]
other revisions concerned with cognates the other motives that Morris may have had in mind seem definitely secondary -, I feel that we can safely assume that in all 322 changes Morris was primarily interested in putting into his translation cognates of the Old Norse words he was rendering.

The question of the reasons for Morris's preference for cognates still remains unanswered. So far as I know, no statement by Morris explaining his predilection for cognates has survived. We do know, however, that from the very beginning of his study of Icelandic, he was fond of using cognates in turning the sagas into English. In the Preface to Volume VI of The Saga Library Magnússon says in his account of his early work with Morris,

The dialect of our translation was not the Queen’s English, but it was helpful towards penetrating into the thought of the old language. Thus, to give an example, leiðtogi, a guide, became load-tugger (load=way, in load-star, load-stone; togi from toga to tug (on), one who leads on with a rope); kvænask (=kvæna sik from kván=queen, woman) to bequeen one's self=to take a wife etc. That such a method of acquiring the language should be a constant source of merriment goes without saying.1

Moreover, in the same essay Magnússon actually defends Morris's use of archaic words on the ground that most of them are cognates of the Old Norse words and “are literal translations of the Icel. originals ... "; it is not at all unlikely that in this statement Magnússon was echoing the opinion of Morris himself.

As to the style of Morris little need be said except this - that it is a strange misunderstanding to describe all terms in his translations which are not familiar to the reading public as 'pseudo-Middle-English.' Anyone in a position to collate the Icelandic text with the translation will see at a glance that in the overwhelming majority of cases these terms are literal translations of the Icel. originals, e.g., by-men - býjar-menn=town's people; cheaping - kaupangr=trading station; earth-burg - jarðborg=earth-work; shoe-swain - skó-sveinn=page; outbidding - út-boð=call to arms, etc. It is a strange piece of impertinence to hint

[435]

at 'pseudo-Middle-English’ scholarship in a man who, in a sense, might be said to be a living edition of all that was best in M.-E. literature. The question is simply this: is it worthwhile to carry closeness of translation to this length, albeit that it is an interesting and amusing experiment? That is a matter of taste; therefore not of dispute.1

Undoubtedly, as I have already stated, Morris's extreme fondness for cognates was due to the fact that he thought they made the translation in some way more literal. Perhaps he felt that by employing exactly the same word in English as had been used in the Old Norse, he was reproducing the substance of the original more faithfully even though, as we have seen in a number of cases, there was actually no difference in meaning between his word and the word he rejected. He may also have felt that by using cognates he was indirectly bringing out the close kinship between the Eng­lish and the Icelandic, and that the English cognates reproduced more accurately than Magnússon's words the character of the Old Norse diction, as indeed they unquestionably did in several instances, as we shall see.

Since, therefore, both those changes in which Morris inserted compounds and derivatives and those in which he introduced cognates seem to have been made in the interest of greater exactness, Ihave, as I have previously indicated, classified them with the alterations in which he was clearly striving for greater literalness by reproducing the substance of the Old Norse more accurately and by imitating stylistic features of the saga, but I have put the revisions concerned with compounds, derivatives, and cognates in a separate class, because here he seems to have sought for exactness in a different way.

The 52 changes in which Morris introduced compounds and deriv-


                                                                                                                             

The final sections of Anderson's manucript, which consist of four appendices, are available in pdf form:

pp. 551 - 625 1st half of Morris and Magnússon's translation of Sigurd the Jerusalemfarer, pp. 623-884

pp. 626 - 700 Sigurd the Jerusalemfarer

pp. 701 - 775 Sigurd the Jerusalemfarer

pp. 776 - 850 Sigurd the Jerusalemfarer

pp. 851 - 866 Sigurd the Jerusalemfarer

pp. 867 - 1008 Eyrbyggia Saga, manuscript compared with 1892 version, pp. 885-925, 949-55; Grettissaga, pp. 926-41; style of Morris's illuminated mss., pp. 942-91; Prologue to Heimskringla, 956-66; Haralds saga, pp. 967-76; Haward the Halt, pp. 977-91; Old Icelandic usages in Morris's poetry, pp. 993-98; Scandinavian works in Morris's library, pp. 999-1010

pp. 1009 - 1032 bibliography, pp. 1011-32

  1. See above pages 42-43.

  2. The name “Gunnlung” must be a misprint for “Gunnlaug.”

  3. Saga Library, VI, XIII-XIV.

  4. Collected Works, VII, XVII.

  5. Saga Library, VI, VII.

  6. For a detailed account of this manuscript, see below pages 529-539.

  7. [footnote missing]

  8. See Items Number 438, 439, 448, and 450 in Catalogue of the Valuable Library of Ancient Manuscripts and Valuable and Rare Printed Books, Including Several Original Holograph MSS of the Publications of William Morris; The Kelmscott Press Books on Vellum; The Essex & Other Art Presses, &c.., The Property of Lawrence W. Hodson, Esq., of Compton Hall, Wolverhampton, Which Will be Sold by Auction, by Messre. Sotheby, Wilkinson, & Hodge…On Monday, 3rd of Decmeber, 1906, and two following Days

  9. [footnote missing]

  10. For a detailed account of this manuscript, see below pages 398 ff.

  11. See William Morris: Artist Writer Socialist, I, 460. After complaining of the difficult task of turning the Icelandic “vísur” into English verse without departing too far from the sense of the... [fragment missing]

  12. See Item No. 1072 in Maggs Brothers’ Catalogue, No. 578(1932).

  13. See William Morris: Artist Writer Socialist, I, 456-457.

  14. This assumption does not, of course, conflict with Magnússon’s statement, quoted above, in regard to the way in which The Saga Library was prepared. Magnússon says, it will be remembered, that in the case of the sagas included in the first three volumes Morris “wrote out the translation and I collated his MS. with the original,” and that for “the last two volumes of the Heimskringla the process was reversed, I doing the translation, he the collation” (Saga Library, VI, vii); however, although all these saga-renderings were published for the first time between 1891 and 1895, we know definitely that all the tales included in the first three volumes, with the exception of The Story of the Heath-Slayings, were actually translated in the 1860’s and 1870’s, and very likely the Heiðarvíga saga also was turned into English at that time, although we do not happen to have any definite information about the...[fragment missing]

  15. This manuscript is now in the possession of Professor Paul R. Lieder of Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts.

  16. For information regarding the date of Morris’s translation of this saga, see above pages 344-348.

  17. Einarsson, “Eiríkr Magnússon and his Saga-translations,” p. 27.

  18. For a complete list of these changes, see below, pages 721-767.

  19. For a complete list of these changes, see below, pages 721-735.

  20. [footnote missing]

  21. In quoting specimen changes, I have followed the same form as that used in the Appendix. Thus, the reference in the left-hand column is to the chapter and line in Morris’s translation as it is presented in Part A of Appendix I; then follow, first, Magnússon’s original rendering and then, after the colon, Morris’s revised version. The reference in the right-hand column is to the page and line in Unger’s edition of the Heimskringla, the text on which Morris and Magnússon based their translation; then comes the Old Norse original.

  22. [footnote missing]

  23. [footnote missing]

  24. [footnote missing]

  25. See below, pages 725-728, the changes in Group I, A, 1, c, (2).

  26. [footnote missing]