The marginality of modernist translation projects like the
Zukofskys’ has extended into the present, both in and out of the
academy. Not only do the innovations of modernism inspire few
English-language translators, but the critical commentary these
innovations receive is shaped by the continuing dominance of
transparent discourse—which is to say that they are treated
dismissively, even by the fledgling academic discipline of Translation
Studies. This is apparent in Ronnie Apter’s
Apter sought to distinguish Pound’s achievement as a poet—
translator from that of his Victorian predecessors and then measure his
influence on later English-language poetry translation, mainly in the
{224}
United States. But she was not fond of the most daring modernist
experiments. Although her discussion included many translators, wellknown as well as obscure (Kenneth Rexroth, Robert Lowell, Paul
Blackburn, W.S.Merwin), she totally ignored the Zukofskys’ Catullus,
preferring instead to comment on the free, colloquial version of
Catullus 8 that Louis Zukofsky included in his volume of poems,
The standard of “success” here is fluent, domesticating translation
where discursive shifts are unobtrusive, scarcely noticeable. Thus,
Apter praised Blackburn’s Provençal translations because “he
develops a diction in which both modern colloquialisms and deliberate
archaisms seem at home” (Apter 1987:72). But Pound’s version of
Arnaut Daniel’s “L’aura amara” “is marred by pseudo-archaic
excursions” and “ludicrous” renderings, making it “sometimes
marvelous and sometimes maddeningly awful” (ibid.:70, 71, 68). Apter
definitely shared part of the modernist cultural agenda, notably the
“emphasis on passion and intellect combined.” And she went so far as
to inscribe this agenda in Pound’s translations, calling his versions of
Daniel “Donne-like,” using T.S.Eliot’s reading of “metaphysical”
poetry to describe an English-language translation of a Provençal text
and then concluding, somewhat disingenuously, that it was Pound, not
she, who “has made a semi-successful comparison of Arnaut Daniel
and John Donne” (ibid.:71). The kind of translation Apter preferred,
however, was not modernist, but Enlightenment, not historicist, but
humanist, lacking the distancing effect of the foreign, transparent. She
praised Burton Raffel’s version of
The marginalization of modernism in English-language translation during the postwar period limited the translator’s options and {225} defined their cultural and political stakes. Most translators chose a fluent, domesticating method that reduced the foreign text to dominant cultural values in English, above all transparent discourse, but also a varied range of concepts, beliefs, and ideologies that were equally dominant in Anglo-American culture at this time (Judeo-Christian monotheism, Enlightenment humanism, cultural elitism). The few translators who chose to resist these values by developing a foreignizing method, taking up the innovations pioneered by Pound to signify the linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text, encountered condemnation and neglect. The ways in which this cultural situation constrained the translator’s activity, the forms of resistance that a modernist translator might adopt at the margins of English-language literary culture, are pointedly illustrated by the career of the American poet Paul Blackburn (1926–1971). The overriding question in this assessment of Blackburn’s career is twofold: How did his translation projects come to negotiate the dominance of transparency and other values in postwar American culture? And to what extent can he serve as a model of how to resist this dominance? Pound played a crucial role in Blackburn’s formation as a poettranslator. It was under Pound’s influence that Blackburn began studying Provençal troubadour poetry in 1949–1950, when he was an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin.