Both More Than a Language and No More of a Language Michael Hartnett and the Politics of...

7/27/2019 Both More Than a Language and No More of a Language Michael Hartnett and the Politics of Translation.

1/16

RememberingMichael Hartnett: A Language Seldom Spoken, edited by John McDonagh and Stephen

Newman. Dublin: Four Courts Press, pages !"#$%

Both more than a language and no more of a language :Michael Hartnett and the Politics of Translation.

&'oth more than a language and no more o( a language): Michael *artnett and the Politics o(+ranslation) in Remembering Michael Hartnett: A Language Seldom Spoken, edited by JohnMcDonagh and Stephen Newman. Dublin: Four Courts Press, pages !"#$%

ugene -)'rien

5 keywords

Derrida, *artnett, translation, politics, languageAbstract

+his essay loos at the politics o( translation through a speci(ic (ocus on the poetry, in /rish and innglish, o( Michael *artnett. /t suggests a politics o( translation that is emancipatory and creati0e,and deconstructs traditional hierarchies o( source and target languages

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

-n the rear co0er o( Translations2 A Selection, the point is made that &(or most o( his li(e Michael

*artnett (orded the languages and cultures o( places and ages). /n this 0olume, complimenting

*artnett)s already published translations o( the /rish poets Daibhi 3 'ruadair, P4draig *aic5ad,

6odhgh4n 3 7athaille and Nuala N8 Dhomhnaill, there are translations (rom -ld, Middle and

Modern /rish, 9erman, Chinese, atin, at0ian and Spanish. +he authors translated include ao#t;u,

Siong +u, Catullus, 9iolla 'righde Mac Con Midhe, 'rian Mac 9iolla Ph4draig, Daibh8 3

# #


2/16

'ruadair, 6odhag4n 3 7athaille, Se4n 3 Morch< 74ith8neach, oghan 7ua 3 Sect o( translation pro0ide an interesting

contrast between his 0iews o( translation and what might be deemed the pre0ailing 0iew:

/ ha0e tried to show the 0ariety o( *aic5ad)s metres and the 0ariety o( his themes. / ha0e

not, o( course, caught the beauty o( his /rish. Some o( the close#lipped /rish#speaing

writers o( today do not appro0e o( translations (rom the language: it is as i( they do not

wish to share poets they do not read themsel0es. 6 translation is, at best, an illuminating

(ootnote to the original? and / hope that readers o( this boo will not be lead away (rom,but towards the real *aic5ad.

/( we return to the di0erse list o( authors in his Translations boo,@ and to his other published

translations, it would seem that *artnett spend an inordinate amount o( time creating &illuminating

(ootnotes) to other writers. / would suggest that this term is, in e((ect, a rhetorical and suasi0e de0ice

on the part o( *artnett, in order to appease the &close#lipped) cabal who would decry his wor

immediately. 'y pro((ering the oli0e branch o( de(erring to the primacy o( the original, *artnett was

deliberately under0aluing the epistemological status o( his translations. / (urther suggest that on

closer reading, this Auotation will be (ound to deconstruct what it seems to say, and (unctions instead,

to underline the emancipatory potential o( *artnett)s politics o( translation.

9i0en his tremendous output, it becomes clear that there is more at stae (or *artnett in terms o( the

0alue o( translation within his oeuvrethan he is indicating, and in this chapter, / will demonstrate the

power(ul use to which he puts translation as he attempts to create a cosmopolitan world0iew within

which the /rish language and literature can tae its place. /ndeed, one could eBtrapolate (rom this

literary endea0our, a politics o( translation wherein the (low (rom language to language is emblematic

# @ #


3/16

o( a new order o( literary politics with particular re(erence to the place o( /rish poetry, whether that

poetry be written in /rish or nglish.

/n this conteBt, it is interesting to loo at the wor o( JacAues Derrida on the issue o( language and

translation. riting in Monolingualism of the Other? or, The rosthesis of Origin, Derrida maes

what seems to be a statement that is the total opposite o( *artnett)s initial Auotation:

2 e only e0er spea one language

Eyes, but

2 e ne0er spea only one language.G

/n this seemingly gnomic assertion, Derrida is bringing to bare his ideas on the need to interrogate

notions o( identity, monolingualism, (undamentalism, and ownership o( language and culture. +o see

language as static organisms or as the possessors o( a chosen (ew is to de#ontologi;e what languages

are 2 modes o( communication between sel( and other, structures that preceded us, into which we are

inserted, and which will continue long a(ter we are gone. Crucially, these structures are constantly

changing, and gi0en the increasingly globali;ed nature o( the world, languages are changing e0er

more Auicly.

ater in the same essay, Derrida maes the point that &e0ery culture institutes itsel( through the

unilateral imposition o( some politics o( language. Mastery begins, as we now, through the power

o( naming, o( imposing and legitimating appellations).! +his is precisely what *artnett was re(erring

to in terms o( his original 2 translation binarism, and the ad>ecti0e &thin#lipped) emblematised this

imposition o( a politics o( language. *ere, /rish was the pure original, and the best one could hope

(or (rom a translation would be that it would add some small Aualia o( understanding. More

# G #


4/16

importantly, howe0er, *artnett was deliberately underplaying the status o( the translation at an iconic

le0el 2 the original /rish poem would appear on a page, while the translation was symbolised as a

(ootnote, an eBplicatory de0ice, a supplement to the original, which in no way could be seen as

threatening that original. +he iconicity o( originalHin(erior copy is (urther (ore grounded by the (act

that (ootnotes are usually printed in a smaller (ont, with the lines being single, as opposed to double,

spaced.

6t the core o( the politics o( translation, then are the twin issues o( linguistic ownership Ethis is our

language and we don)t want it diluted or adulterated into another language and that o( purity Eonly

our language can con0ey the purity o( our identity, our culture, our ideology. *ere again, Derrida

maes a telling point.

'ut (or this 0ery reason, the monolingualism o( the other means another thing, which will

be re0ealed little by little: that in any case we spea only one language 2 and, that we do

not o!nit. e only e0er spea one language 2 and, since it returns to the other, it eBists

asymmetrically, always (orthe other, (rom the other, ept by the other. Coming (rom theother, remaining with the other, and returning to the other.$

/t would seem that here, too, Derrida is at odds with *artnett, and yet, i( we loo closely at *artnett)s

Auote, we will (ind that all is not as it seems. *e maes the point, we remember, that: &Isome o( the

close#lipped /rish#speaing writers o( today do not appro0e o( translations (rom the language: it is as

i( they do not wish to share poets they do not read themsel0es)." +he interesting words here are &do

not read themsel0es). 6t an initial reading, it would seem that these writers want to hoard the pearls

o( their own tradition and not share them or dilute their linguistic purity. *owe0er, in actuality,

*artnett is saying that these writers &do not read) the wors in the original. Not to read poems is to

allow them, and their tradition to die, and in a deconstructi0e re0ersal, *artnett is claiming that to

# ! #


5/16

lea0e these wors unread is to condemn the tradition to silence 2 and the imagery o( &close#lipped)

underlines this. +o spea through closed lips is a contradiction in terms? in (act these so#called

purists are condemning their supposedly#lo0ed tradition to silence and ultimate death 2 as it is only

through communication that these poems can li0e. /ronically, howe0er, as Derrida has noted in the

pre0ious Auotation, to spea is to open up language to the other, and to gi0e up any sense o( mastery.

/t is also to gi0e up any binary opposition between a hegemonic original and a supplementary

translation.

Peggy Kamu(, in her introductory notes to a selected passage (rom Derrida)s &Des +ours de 'abel), L

maes the (ollowing interesting comments with regard to deconstructi0e perspecti0es on translation

theory.

translation has always implied a secondary operation coming a(ter the original. +he

deconstruction o( this concept displaces that order with the almost unthinable notion

Ealmost unthinable because it points to the 0ery limits o( thining o( an originary

translation be(ore the possibility o( any distinction between original and translation. 'utdeconstruction does not only en>oin us to thin translation di((erently, beyond the

con(ines o( its strict sense, that is, translation o( thought (rom one language to another. /t

also displays the mo0ement o( the trans 2 translation, trans(erence, transport,

trans(ormation 2 as the 0ery mo0ement o( thought between points o( origin and arri0al

that are always being de(erred, di((ered one by the other.

/ would argue that this is precisely what Michael *artnett is attempting in his own translations, an

aim (ar more sub0ersi0e o( the close#lipped orthodoBy than he would o0ertly suggest. +o illustrate

this, / would lie to loo at some eBamples (rom his collectionA "ecklace of #rens.

# $ #


6/16

+his collection is central to *artnett)s pro>ect as it is here, in the title poem, that he describes a 0atic

enculturation into the art and cra(t o( poetry. *e describes in this poem how as a young boy, he

(ound a nest o( wrens whose &chirping young):

D)5irigh siad 2 is thuirling 7ose and re#alighted6r8s ar m)ucht 6round my nec -rmsa bh8 muincle cl


7/16

(ootnote, is in actuality, creating a di((erent meaning across the page, and across linguistic systems.

here the &original) meaning lies is 0ery much a moot point, and here, *artnett comes 0ery close to

Derrida)s ideas on the polysemic power o( translation.

/s this not a locus classicus o( the idea o( translation as a power(ul (orce (or deconstructing

possessi0e imperati0es o( ideology /ndeed, Derrida has made deconstruction and translation

synonymous, deconstruction, he says, consists:

only o( trans(erence, and o( a thining through o( trans(erence, in all the senses that this

word acAuires in more than one language, and (irst o( all that o( the trans(erence between

languages. /( / had to ris a single de(inition o( deconstruction, one as brie(, elliptical and

economical as a password, / would say simply and without o0erstatement: plus d%une

langue2 both more than a language and no more o( alanguage.@

Strictu sensu, this new le0el o( meaning is only a0ailable to a reader who has some nowledge o( the

/rish language to begin with, as only then will the change in the line become clear. +hus, instead o(

>ust going (rom original to translation in a le(t to right motion across the page, the reader is now

liberated /t is possible to (lic bac and (orth across the page (rom the /rish language original to the

nglish translation, with meaning residing in the process o( trans(erence. Paul de Man speas o( this

process in the (ollowing terms, seeing translation as putting:

the original in motion, to de#canoni;e the original, gi0ing it a mo0ement which is a

mo0ement o( disintegration, o( (ragmentation. +his mo0ement o( the original is a

wandering, an errance, a ind o( permanent eBile i( you wish, but it is not really an eBile,

(or there is no homeland, nothing (rom which one has been eBiled.G

# L #


8/16

/n other words, meaning eBists in the act o( reading and writing, it is an intersub>ecti0e construct

made by the speaing sel( and the listening other, who in turn interprets the meaning in polysemic

ways.

+his process o( altered meanings can also be (ound in &Strained Mind), where increasingly (ractured

images (rom a mind under strain are held together by the almost mantra#lie repetition, in each

alternate line o( &cogar sa ch


9/16

+he same structure is to be (ound in &Poem (or Niall, L) where once again, the mo0ement o( the

translation allows (or di((erent le0els o( meaning. /n this poem, *artnett is o((ering ad0ice to his son,

looing at di((erent aspects o( the boy)s (uture li(e, and eBhorting him to &be happy but be tough).L

*owe0er, again, in the (inal line, we see the translation and hybridity o( meaning.

'eidh m5 ann is t< i d)(hear g 2 / will be there as you grow older 23l(ad prtar leatsa (s 6nd some day /)ll buy you porter.

+he literal translation o( the /rish lines is as (ollows: &/ will be there when you are a young man H /

will drin porter with you yet) Im$ translation? the actual translation stresses the unconscious

imperati0e towards the retention o( some (orm o( parental power in terms o( the (ather actually

paying (or the drin. *ere there is a deconstruction o( what on the sur(ace is ritual o( adult male#

bonding? at another intra#linguistic le0el, the (ather is still in the power position, at least in his own

mind. 6t some le0el, Niall will be (iBed in his mind at the age o( se0en.

*artnett)s use o( translation, as we ha0e seen, stresses the importance o( the genre, especially in an

/rish conteBt. *ere, translation is de(ined 0ery broadly, and one is reminded o( the de(inition o(

translation o((ered by +erry agleton, which also espouses diffrance, and which sees all teBts as

being in the process o( an ongoing process o( translation:

0ery teBt is a set o( determinate trans(ormations o( other, preceding and surrounding

teBts o( which it may not e0en be consciously aware? it is within, against and across theseother teBts that the poem emerges into being. 6nd these other teBts are, in their turn,

&tissues) o( such pre#eBistent teBtual elements, which can ne0er be unra0elled bac to

some primordial moment o( &origin).%

# % #


10/16

/ thin that *artnett)s speci(ic use o( translations in the poems discussed underlines the importance o(

translation as a poetic de0ice. thically, he espouses a pluralist and open dialogue with the other, and

linguistically, he is clearly o( the 0iew that language is open, organic and operates most (ully when in

dialogue with itsel(, and with other languages.

6t a structural le0el, as well as a thematic one, this is true o( his well#nown teBt &nchicore Haiku.

*ere the classic Japanese 0erse (orm o( *aiu, a minimalist structure in which the poet has se0enteen

syllables or (ewer in which to eBpress an eBperience, is transposed to the Dublin area o( /nchicore,

where *artnett li0ed (or a number o( years. +his (orm is Auite speci(ic, usually each poem has three

lines, with a template o( $#L#$ syllable structure. /deally, each poem should be read aloud in one

breath, there is an a0oidance o( rhyme, there is some (orm o( >uBtaposition, with two elements or

lines indirectly related to the third line, a techniAue which pro0ides a metaphorical adeAuation in the

poem. hat is achie0ed in this translation#dri0en eBperiment are L poems, each depicting 0arious

snatches o( eBperience (rom *artnett)s interaction with /nchicore. Displaced (rom his nati0e est

imeric, he is able to achie0e that aesthetic distance that is one o( the bene(its o( translation, on his

own li(e and eBperience, and one o( the most Auoted o( these *aiu (oregrounds, yet again, the

inter(usion o( /rish and nglish:

My nglish dam bursts

6nd out stroll all my bastards

/rish shaes its head.@O

+he notion o( hybridity n language is signi(ied in the possessi0e use o( &my bastards) and the almost

con(lictual role o( /rish and nglish in his mentaliteis clear in this stan;a. +his is a gap that can

only be bridged by translation. /t is this ongoing notion o( translation that has mared the themes

# O #


11/16

(ound in his wor, and it is with a ringing poetic assertion about the 0ery nature o( this interaction

that this chapter will close.

6s a (inal eBample, / would lie to loo at what is (or many *artnett)s eBemplary teBt, &6 Farewell to

nglish). +his poem has become something o( a cultural touchstone. Published in %L$, it is an

elegy (or the death o( the /rish language and culture in a world (ull o( &0acuumcleaner minds). @

*artnett sets out his stall and tells us that he will no longer write in nglish, but will hence(orth write

in /rish. ie his already cited comment on translation, the end o( this poem would seem to broo no

interpretation:

/ ha0e made my choice and lea0e with little weeping

/ ha0e come with meagre 0oice

+o court the language o( my people.@@

*owe0er, a hermeneutic eBamination o( the conteBt o( this resonant phrase will unco0er a le0el o(

nuance and compleBity that parallels our earlier eBamination o( those 0iews on translation. +he

nglish that he eBamines in the poem is, we might eBpect, the narrow discourse o( colonial mastery

&the gra0el o( 6nglo#SaBon).@G +he poem encompasses both the anger o( the colonised sub>ect: &what

was / doing with these (oreign words), and the elegiac sense o( loss o( his nati0e language, a loss

that is enunciated in the anaphoric &m'nla,simh,dubhfholtach,'lainn,caoin).@! *owe0er, there is

also a sharp sense o( irony, as, through the eBtended metaphor o( cooing, he comments on the (usion

and intersection o( the two languages. Section G is composed o( two sentences, both creati0e o( this

metaphor o( cooing. /n the (irst, &Che( Qeats) is praised (or his ability to &raise mere stew to a

glorious height), because he was able to blend the ingredients into a coherent miBture which was

&care(ully stirred in to get the (la0our right). @$ +his is in star contrast to &Iour commis#che(s) who

# #


12/16

merely &add to a simple 6nglo#SaBon stoc), and *artnett goes on to list the stilted ingredients o(

&Cuchulainn)s marrow bones)? a &dash o( 3 7athaille) and a &glass o( uni0ersity hic#haec#hoc) which

culminate in &the celebrated 6nglo#/rish stew).@"

+he essential di((erence here is that (luidity o( linguistic interaction which *artnett saw as possible

though translation is not operati0e here. /nstead, we see a stilted &stew) where there is no interaction

or trans(ormation across any o( the three languages: /rish, nglish or atin. +he necessary space o(

writing, that gap with which we ha0e (ound *artnett to be so interested, is not to be (ound in the type

o( writing he satiri;es here. For *artnett, as (or *omi 'habha, translation is a &place o( hybridity)

where the (inal source o( meaning is &neither the one nor the other)Iitalics original.@L+he ongoing

play o( multilinguistic signi(iers in the poem is paradigmatic o( this play o( diffrance, which

ensures, as de Man obser0es that &meaning is always displaced with regard to the meaning it ideally

intended 2 that meaning is ne0er reached).@+he use o( &displaced) is pertinent here. /n translation, the

&meaning) passes (rom language to language, there is little or no re(erential dimension brought into

play, and so, the posited linguistic repossession o( the place seemingly attempted by the Auasi#

translations at the beginning o( each poem, is in (act dismembered and disarticulated by the processes

o( language itsel(. /ndeed, translation, as set out inA "ecklace of #rens, would seem to be endemic

to *artnett)s 0iew o( poetry, as he puts it &their talons le(t on me H scars not healed yet).@%

*ence &6 Farewell to nglish) can be read simplistically as a saying goodbye to writing or publishingin the nglish language. *owe0er, in the light o( the politics o( translation that we ha0e been

eBploring in this article, this poem can also be read as a seminal part o( this pro>ect, as he in0oes a

blessing on a new linguistic >ourney which will usher in a new 0ersion o( nglish, a 0ersion

underwritten by the types o( translation which ha0e been the sub>ect o( this chapter. +his reading o(

the title is 0alidated by the O(ford )nglish *ictionar$, which de(ines the term as &an eBpression o(

# @ #


13/16

good wishes at the parting o( (riends, originally addressed to the one setting (orth). *ere the good

wishes are plain in the &nglish) that *artnett wrote in the wae o( this poem 2 an nglish that has

been shot through at all le0els, with the discourses o( its linguistic others. /ndeed, the metaphor o(

&setting (orth) is continued in the root meaning o( &translate) itsel(. +his is a combination o( &trans)

and &(erre) meaning &to carry across), and this sense o( mo0ement and trans(er is strong in section $,

where he cites the authors whom he (ound &in nglish nets), and to whom he must now say (arewell:

My orca holding out his arms

+o lo0e the beauty o( his bullets

Pasternac who outli0ed Stalin6nd died because o( lesser beasts.GO

+his pan#uropean tradition o( literature is a tradition in which *artnett (eels at home. riting in the

introduction to his boo o( translations o( the wor o( D4ibhi -)'ruadair, *artnett tells o( how he

in0ented his own picture o( -)'ruadairGand this is a resonant image o( his attitude to the nglish

language, /rish culture and language and his own 0iew o( his role as a poet. /n a way, *artnett)s

nglish is itsel( a translation, a series o( mo0ements between di0erse in(luences, which enact

Derrida)s idea o( the mo0ement o( the trans2 translation, trans(erence, transport, trans(ormation 2 as

the 0ery mo0ement o( thought between points o( origin and arri0al that are always being de(erred,

di((ered one by the other. /n essence, this is *artnett)s politics o( translation? the nglish to which he

wishes well is &both more than a language and no more o( alanguage).

Endnotes: *artnett, Michael,Haicad, -ldcastle, Meath E%%G, p. G.@ *artnett, Michael, Translations: A Selection, edited by Peter Fallon -ldcastle, Meath E@OOG passim.G Derrida, JacAues,Monolingualism of the Other? or, The rosthesis of Origin, translated by Patric Mensah

Cali(ornia E%%", p. O.! Monolingualism of the Other, p. G%.$ Monolingualism of the Other, p. !O." Haicad, p. @.L Kamu(, Peggy Eed A *errida Reader: +et!een the +linds, *emel *empsted E%%, pp. @!#@!@. A *errida Reader, p. @!@.

# G #


14/16

% *artnett, Michael, A "ecklace of #rens: Selected oems in &rish !ith )nglish+ranslations by the 6uthor,-ldcastle, Meath E%L, pp. #%.

O "ecklace of #rens, p.% "ecklace of #rens, p..@ Derrida, JacAues,Mmoires: -or aul de Man, translated by Cecile indsay, Jonathan Culler and duardo

Cada0a. 7e0ised edition? (irst published %". New Qor E%%, pp. !#$.G de Man, Paul, The Resistance to Theor$, +heory and *istory o( iterature, Rolume GG. Minneapolis, E%", p.

%@.! "ecklace of #rens, p. G.$ "ecklace of #rens, p.G%." "ecklace of #rens, pp. G#G%.L "ecklace of #rens, p. !$. "ecklace of #rens, pp. !!#!$.% agleton, +erry, &+ranslation and +rans(ormation), Stand, / EG %LL, L@#LL, page L!.@O *artnett, Michael,&nchicore Haiku. First published %$ 7a0en 6rts 'oos. Dublin E%%%, p. %.@ *artnett, Michael, A -are!ell to )nglish EFirst published %L$. -ldcastle, Meath: 9allery Press, %L, page

!.@@ -are!ell to )nglish, page !.@G -are!ell to )nglish, page L.@! -are!ell to )nglish, page L.@$

-are!ell to )nglish, page O.@" -are!ell to )nglish, page O.@L 'habha, *omi K. E%%! The Location of .ulture. ondon: 7outledge, %%!, page @$.@ Resistance to Theor$, page %.@% "ecklace of #rens, page %.GO -are!ell to )nglish, page @.G *artnett, Michael E%$ / +ruadair: Selected poems of *'ibh0 / +ruadair translated and introduced by

Michael *artnett. -ldcastle, Meath: 9allery Press E%$, p. %.

# ! #


15/16

@

G

!

$

"

L

%

O

@

G

!

$

"

L

%


16/16

@O

@

@@

@G

@!

@$

@"

@L

@

@%

GO

G

Both More Than a Language and No More of a Language Michael Hartnett and the Politics of...

Documents

Transcript of Both More Than a Language and No More of a Language Michael Hartnett and the Politics of...