ANTHOLOGIZING AS A FORM OF TRANSLATIONIgor Riznar

Faculty of management, University of PrimorskaSlovenia

igor.riznar@guest.arnes.si

Abstract

In the following article, anthologizing is discussed in away that can be of use to both translation theorists andanthologizers. The main purpose is to provide a startingpoint for further research into the role of anthologies oftranslated literature in target literary systems. The roleof editors and translators is discussed as well as thediscourse found in introductions, prefaces, forewords andnotes to anthologies. It has been found that – in the caseof some Slovenian anthologies of translated poetry – acertain part of the literary canon in source literature isconsiderably narrowed and promoted mainly due to thespecific nature of the process of anthologizing. In arather simplified process during which some authors andtheir texts, which are easiliy available from the existingrepertoire of already translated texts, are selected inorder to represent an incomplete if not distorted image ofa part of a literature in the recipient literary system.In addition, it was found that the paratextual discourseaccompanying anthologies should not be taken too seriouslyby potential readers because of the limited number oftopics discussed by both editors and translators.

1. Introduction

In the age of consumerism, sophisticated marketingtechniques, advanced communication technology andtelevision's vast wasteland, in which poets and publishersoften lament for lost audience, poems continue to bewritten, printed, and sometimes even read. Publishingpoetry is almost by definition a Sisyphean task, the moreso when one is about to embark upon anthologizing Americanpoetry for Slovenian target audience.In the Introduction to The Vintage Book of ContemporaryAmerican Poetry (McClatchy, 1990:xxiii) the potential

Slovenian anthologizer reads: "For poetry in English, thishas been the American century. Americans remade anddominated the art; they raised the stakes and named theterms." And gets almost frightened after he (usually it ishe) has learned that: "More than twelve hundred poetrytitles have been published annually in the United Statessince 1993..." (Lehman: 1997:10). A project like this willcertainly represent a tricky task with problems abound,but with the wisdom of hindsight the anthologizeranticipates at least some of the problems his predecessorshave come across.

The purpose of this paper is to describe thesituation regarding the role a certain part of translatedliterature plays in the Slovenian literary system and,indirectly, to position translation thinking of someSlovenian editors and translators within the developmentsof translation studies in the last twenty years.

2. Translation studies and anthologies of translatedpoetry

In the past, translation theorists were seldom concernedwith translations as instruments of mediation betweennational literatures, but during the past twenty yearsgrowing interest in translation shifted their attentiontowards considerations of the impact, reception andfunction of translations and the role translations play inthe literary systems. Nowadays, most of us would agreethat translation should be studied in the sense of target-culture goal-oriented decision-making socio-culturalactivity. Furthermore, when studying translations weshould also analyze translation criticism, essays ontranslation, and, especially for the sake of our research,prefaces to translations, statements made by translators,editors, publishers, and other persons involved inanthologizing activities.The study of translation adds significantly to ourknowledge of the interaction between literary systems andmay tell both theorists and readers a lot about the waysin which these systems function. Literary contacts are,most often, initiated by the target literature. Thus if a

translation, or – as in our case – a collection oftranslations, is to function successfully in the receivingliterature, the translator should not reduce the problemsof translation to the problems of translatability. On thecontrary, historical and cultural constraints in poetrytranslation should be in the centre of translator’sattention.The central part of this paper focuses on an anthology oftranslated poetry, namely The Anthology of American Poetry of the 20th

Century published in Slovenia in 1981 by CankarjevaZaložba.When studying anthologizing, the following topics are ofrelevance:

- the purpose of the anthology:

to promote an interest in the sourceliterature

to trigger new impulses in the targetliterature

to introduce new poetic forms into the TL to contribute to the construction of the

target literature/culture to inform about new poetic movements to complement the existing literary canon

in the TL to affirm the international status of SL

literature

- the role of the translator/editor/publisher- the authors included/excluded- the role of paratextual elements (prefaces, notes,

etc.)- the constructed image of a

writer/work/literature/culture that has beentranslated

- the position of an anthology in the target culture- the relationship between canonizing and anthologizing

Poetry anthologies are assembled for many differentreasons: some try to define the scope of the new and showtarget culture readers in what direction poetry is

heading, others concentrate on the past, seeking to definethe poetries of earlier centuries or to identifyinfluential currents of thinking. In addition, publishersinvest in anthologies, and they decide the number of pagesthey want to invest in. There is another important issuethat was pointed out by Lefevere, namely that the reasonis different if you are a publisher

"…who commissions an anthology, or if you are ananthologizer and you would like to see the fruit ofyour labour in print. Your ostensible reason(promote understanding between peoples, forinstance) may not, and need not be the same as yourreal reason (you have been translating all your lifeand you would like to see your work in print beforeyou die), provided that one of your reasons can bestated in the introduction to your anthology in sucha way that it is acceptable to your prospectiveaudience." (Lefevere, 1995:40)

One of the keys to good anthology-making is that each poemhas to have a reason for being in the book, and for beingin that particular place within it. In anthologies ofpoetry, poems are almost always re-contextualized, becausethey are brought into relationships in which they usuallydo not stand in their context of origin. In addition, ananthology represents only a small corpus selected from awider corpus of works of the source literature/culture.

3. The role of paratextual discourses in anthologies oftranslated poetry

Paratexts are texts accompanying the books that mediatebetween the text (and the author and/or translator), thereader and the publisher. They comprise of titles andsubtitles, pseudonyms, forewords, dedications, epigraphs,prefaces, intertitles, notes, epilogues, and afterwords.The study of these mediating devices is essential for theunderstanding of literary interpretations, as well as for,in the case of translated texts or collections of texts,understanding translation practice.

As for the prefaces to anthologies, their content andfunction have yet to be analyzed systematically,especially because much of what has been said abouttranslation until recently has been said in prefaces.Prefaces usually offer information, but at the same timethey ask for approval and want to capture the goodwill ofthe public. One of the characteristics of prefaces is theinsistent repetition of a limited number of themes and thepoverty of their discourse. Another is their naivelanguage of unreliable nature, which, in turn, makes usthink that the words of translators and editors should notbe taken too seriously.On the one hand, introductions may occasionally exceed 100pages and may represent an authoritative account ofdevelopments in a chosen literature; on the other hand,notes and bibliographical information about poets andpoems often lack sureness of touch.Translation is a rewriting of an original text (Lefevere,1985, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c) that reflects a certainideology, a poetics, sometimes undertaken in the serviceof power, but which can also help introduce new genres andconcepts. In a sense, anthologizing is not only anactivity that takes place between two languages, but alsobetween two cultures. Within a literary system, ananthology, or more likely, a set of anthologies, mayoccupy an important position. In this context, answers tothe following questions should be found: Who translates?What is translated? What is the arrangement of texts? Arepoems included in the book new translations, oldtranslations or re-translated for the anthology?Literary histories do not mention translations very often,as if translations have not been a major shaping force inthe development of world cultures. Translations,especially in the form of anthologized collections oftexts, are to a great extent responsible for the image ofwriters, works and literatures/cultures. Anthologies oftranslated literature, to repeat the words of Lefevere(Lefevere, 1990:27), prepare works for the inclusion inthe canon of the recipient literature.

4. Anthologizing poetry in Slovenia

A search in COBISS (Co-operative Online BibliographicSystem & Services) reveals that there were more than 250anthologies of translated poetry (data on October 18,2012), covering – to name but a few – Croatian poetry,Croatian avant-garde poetry, concrete and visual poetry,Serbian poetry of the 20th Century, poetry of Albanians inYugoslavia, love poetry, a number of anthologies ofSlovenian poetry, including an anthology of Slovenianpornographic poetry, Of the seven anthologies representing national poetries ofdifferent national literatures that were published withinthe last twentyfive years by Cankarjeva Založba, aSlovenian publishing house, The Anthology of American Poetry of the20th Century was published first, in 1986. It was followed byThe Anthology of Spanish Poetry of the 20th Century (1987), The Anthologyof Russian Poetry of the 20th Century (1990), The Anthology ofContemporary Latin American Poetry (1994), The Anthology of BritishPoetry (1996), The Anthology of German Poetry of the 20th Century(1998), and, finally, by The Anthology of Modern French Poetry in2001.Despite the fact that anthologies of translated poetry arerather common in Slovenia, they are more often than notoverlooked by translation scholars, literary theorists andreaders. A relatively wide circulation of anthologies oftranslated poetry can be explained by the fact thatSlovenian literature is a young literature of a smallnation, which is open to new ideas. On the other hand, allof these anthologies saw only one edition, and mostanthologies can still be bought in bookstores, oftenheavily discounted after a couple of years of poor sales.

5. The Anthology of American Poetry of the 20th Centuryfor Slovenian readers

Putting together an anthology reminded Marge Piercy(Piercy, 1987:2) of organizing an enormous dinner partywhere one quarter of the guests are strict vegans, onequarter demand to be served rare beef, one quarter areallergic to wheat or fruit or milk products and theremaining quarter are on a macrobiotic sufi diet. Nobody

is bound to be entirely pleased by the choices, but onehopes that at least the Ideal Eater is satisfied. In thecase of The Anthology of American Poetry of the 20th Century the idealreaders can be found among poetry lovers and a couple ofhundred students studying English at the two Universitiesin Slovenia, which is a rather small target market.The American literary tradition is vast by comparison toour own. The complete body of work is enormous, and thearduous task of translating this motherlode of culturalriches is the kind of endeavour one normally associateswith eleventh-century monks working by candlelight. Froman immense repertoire of poetry that is printed every yearin the United States 202 poems were chosen for The Anthologyof American Poetry of the 20th Century. How the translators dividedtheir work is seen in Table 1.

Translator (thenumber of poets, thenumber of poems)

Translated poets (the number ofpoems)

Marjan Strojan (1,5) Robert Frost (5)Miha Avanzo (29, 115) Carl Sandburg (7), William Carlos

Williams (8), Marianne Moore (3),Edward E. Cummings (6), DelmoreSchwartz (2), John Berryman (1),Lawrence Ferlinghetti (3), CharlesBukowski (3), Denise Levertov (5),Kenneth Koch (2), Robert Creeley(7), Frank O’Hara (4), John Ashbery(4), W.S.Merwin (6), James Wright(6), Gregory Corso (1), Gary Snyder(4), Sylvia Plath (7), Mark Strand(4), Michael Benedict (4), MarwinBell (3), Charles Simic (6), TomClark (3), Ron Padgett (3), EricaJong (3), Luise Glück (3), JamesTate (3), Ai (Florence Ogawa) (2),Susan Feldman (2)

Veno Taufer (6, 20) Wallace Stevens (4), Ezra Pound (3),Thomas Stearns Eliot (3), StanleyKunitz (4), Theodore Roethke (4),Robert Hass (2)

Boris A. Novak inIrena Zorko Novak (6,22)

H.D.(Hilda Doolittle) (4), ElizabethBishop (3), Robert Lowell (5),Richard Wilbur (4), Anthony Hecht(3), Adrienne Rich (3)

Andrej Arko (2,4) John Crowe Ransom (3), LouisZukofsky (1)

Mart Ogen (4,9) Charles Olson (3), Robert Duncan(1), Allen Ginsberg (2), AnneSexton (3)

Bogdan Gradišnik (3,9)

Randall Jarrell (3), GwendolyneBrooks (2), A.R.Ammons (4)

Jure Potokar (3,10) Howard Nemerov (3), Donald Justice(3), (Leroi Jones) Imamu AmiriBaraka (4)

Denis Poniž (1,3) James Dickey (3)Dane Zajc (1,5) Robert Bly (5)

Table 1: Translators (number of translations) andtranslated poets (the number of poems)

The lion’s share of translations goes to the editor, MihaAvanzo (57% of all titles) and two other translators,Boris Novak and his wife, Irena Zorko Novak (11%) and VenoTaufer (10%). The share of other translators was between1.5% and 5% of poems (Denis Poniž – 1.5%, Andrej Arko –2%, Marjan Strojan and Dane Zajc – 2.5%, Mart Ogen andBogdan Gradišnik – 4.5%, Jure Potokar – 5%). I have topoint out that these percentage points would change, notsubstantially though, if the length of individual poemswas taken into account.In the Introduction to The Anthology of American Poetry of the 20thCentury one reads (Avanzo, 1986) that this is the firstbook of this kind in Slovenia and that an anthology is byits nature a compromise in which the anthologizer isrestricted by historical, linguistic and geographicallimitations, as well as by his taste, knowledge andspirit. Some of the principles followed by Avanzo are: toreview basic literary movements within the American poetryof the 20th century, to be informative and to represent.

Informativity seems to be one of the most importantfactors also for other writers of introductions to

anthologies published by Cankarjeva Založba. The reader isoften warned that the anthologizer’s “modest intention” isto “outline some starting-points” (Prenz, 1987:389) thatwill probably trigger future translations. In theIntroduction to The Anthology of Contemporary Latin American Poetrythe same story repeats, but the author of the introductionwho is at the same time the editor of the anthology(Bergles, 1994:29) believes that Slovenes do not haveenough translations from literatures in Latin America andthat there was not enough systematic study of theliteratures from this area. The following statements canbe found in the essay that accompanies The Anthology of BritishPoetry (Strojan, 1998:6-10): anthologies of national poetryare more or less convincing reflections of relationshipsof the literary canon in the SL; anthologies are the firststep on the path towards a better understanding of thesource literature, poets and poems, and within ananthology, a poem starts to live a new life.

In the introduction to The Anthology of German Poetry of the 20th

Century (Kovič & Grafenauer, 1998) the author of theintroduction fills eight pages to give an account of ahundred years of German poetry and finishes with aconclusion that this type of book can not be perfect andthat it only represents the first acquaintance with theauthors, of which some have been introduced to Slovenianreaders for the first time, others have their collectionof poems translated into Slovenian and some, of course arenot included in the anthology. It is well known that someanthologies are assembled by poets and that poets oftentranslate poetry, which is not necessarily always a goodthing. In Slovenia, poets have often been asked toparticipate in anthologies, both as translators oreditors. One of the selections of best world poetry chosenby Slovenian poets published lately is Orfejev spev, ananthology of world poetry, edited by a renowned poet(Grafenauer, 1998). Individual poets give differentreasons for the decisions regarding the choices and mayconsider their task a senseless activity or may say thatarguments of the heart were the most influential factor.Some believe that their choices are completely personaland unfair or may not want to explain the reasons that

influenced their decisions. The common denominator for allof them is their highly poetic language, borderingoccasionally to the nonsensical thinking expressed by theFrost’s remark mentioned in the Introduction.

To summarize, the analysis of the discourse in statementsmade by some Slovenian anthologizers brings us to thefollowing conclusions:

- anthologizing is compromising- informativity and representativeness are the basic

principles leading the choices of authors and theirpoems

- anthologizing can represent a starting point forfuture translations

- choices are a consequence of the anthologizer’ssubjective criteria

- chronological approach is the most frequent principle- anthologies are the first step made on the way to a

better understanding of foreign literatures- anthologies of translated poetry are intended for

poetry lovers- anthologizers are bound to accept the existing canon

within the source literature.

The study of introductions to some American anthologiesbrings us to similar conclusions. Let me give an accountof the discourse found in some of them. The Author of theIntroduction to The Columbia Anthology of American Poetry (Parini,1995:18) admits that his choice was exclusively personal.Twentieth reprint of the Contemporary American Poetry (Hall,1990) tells us little new about the anthologizing practiceof its editor. Its second edition published in 1969 wassubstantially enlarged, some overlooked poets are includedand some others left out due to various reasons. In theIntroduction to American Poetry: An Introductory Anthology Hall(1991) informs the reader that long poems are rarelyincluded in anthologies (thus Whitman’s, Crane’s andPound’s longer poems are missing) and declares hisanthology to be a compromise between a representation ofwhat has happened in American poetry and a collection ofthe best. In The Black Poets, Dudley Randall informs us that

“There have been criticism of the number of newanthologies, but I think they are necessary because eacheditor may have knowledge of some poet or poets of whomother editors are ignorant” (Randall, 1988:xxiii). Thediscourse found in the Introduction written by the editorof The Vintage Book of Contemporary American Poetry (McClatchy,1990) comprises of the following:

- “There is no need for any anthology to choose sides.”(ibid. xxi)

- “In making this selection I have naturally been ledby my own tastes (…)”(ibid. xxvii)

- “But both the space and budget were limited.” (ibid.xxvii)

In the end of her essay to The Faber Book of ContemporaryAmerican Poetry (Vendler, 1990) the author informs the readerthat her anthology can be nothing more than a sampling ofwhat seems satisfying to her taste. She preferred tochoose fewer poets, represented by more poems, because inthis way, readers can see the poet’s whole. In theIntroduction to Postmodern American Poetry (Hoover, 1994)the editor reminds us of the so-called battle of theanthologies that occurred with the publication of New Poetsof England and America which was edited by Donald Hall andRobert Pack in 1962 and The New American Poetry: 1945-1960,which was edited by Donald M. Allen in 1960, thusreminding the reader about the important role anthologiesmay play within a literary system. In the second editionof The Longman Anthology of Contemporary American Poetry (Friebert& Young, 1989:xxi-xxiv) editors tell us that this newversion is more representative of the wide spectrum ofAmerican poetry in the postwar period, and thus a far morejust and representative look at American poetry. Somepoets are missing, they continue, but the editors havedone their best according to their own judgment. Speakingabout the structure of anthologies, they say that thereare two common structures for anthologies: thealphabetical and the chronological – in this respect,their book is something of a hybrid. The reader is alsoinformed about annotations that are occasionally provided,

mainly with the aim to add important backgroundinformation.This brings us to the conclusion that American andSlovenian anthologizers mention similar problems and arefaced with almost the same dilemmas. One must keep in mindhere, of course, that we are comparing anthologies ofindigenous and translated literature. Nevertheless, theaesthetic principles, editorial motives and intentions ofeditors are comparable.

6. Questionnaire

Statements made by anthologizers may provide an insight inthe conditions which they believed affected theirprinciples of text/author/movement selection andorganization. In order to gain deeper understanding of thethinking behind the translation practice of translatorsand the editor a questionnaire was designed and thefollowing set of questions included:

1. What influenced your decisions about theinclusion/exclusion of authors and poems?

2. What is the role of anthology of translated poetry ina national literature/culture system?

3. Please, comment upon: "Poetry is what is lost intranslation".

4. What image about modern American poetry does TheAnthology of the 20th Century American Poetry present to theSlovenian readers?

5. What is the main reason for publishing anthologies oftranslated poetry?

6. In what way did target readers influence yourdecisions?

7. What do you think about the Notes on authors printedat the end of the book?

8. How (if at all) can an anthology of translated poetryshape the literary canon in the target literature(culture)?

9. How many poems were newly translated and how manypoems were old translations?

10. In the context of translation studies, whatother relevant issues should be raised regardinganthologizing translated literature?

11. What were the main difficulties during theprocess of translation?

The editor was asked two additional questions:

1. Please, reveal your ideas and concepts (motives andstrategies) behind the selection and organization ofthe anthology.

2. In the case of a reprint, is there anything you wouldchange?

The questionnaire was sent to all translators and to theeditor and the answers were received from all except theeditor, Miha Avanzo and the translator Dane Zajc. Let usbriefly comment on the received answers.The most common remark to the first question (Whatinfluenced your decisions about the inclusion/exclusion ofauthors and poems?) was that they had little influence onthe choice of authors or poems. Some were offered to pickfive authors from among, say, a group of ten. Onetranslator remarked that the editor knew the translatorsand was rather aware of their preferences, another onesaid that he had chosen only poets he believed he was ableto translate. As for the second question (What is the roleof anthology of translated poetry in a nationalliterature/culture system?), the following remarks areworth mentioning:

- anthologies are important for the development ofyoung talented poets,

- through anthologies readers get informed aboutdistant literatures,

- anthologies delight readers,- national posies of flowers are senseless- anthologies are important, because they open the

doors into the new and rich territories,- poets in the target literature learn about new

developments in the poetry of foreign literatures,

- anthologies are necessary for a deeper understandingbetween two literatures,

- anthologies foster cultural and literal contacts,- anthologies are databases compared to telephone

directories,- translating and anthologizing is spiritually and

culturally profitable experience,- within a multicultural society, anthologies are

important.

A plethora of answers, in which translators believeanthologizing activity is completely absurd or thatanthologies of translated poetry play a significant rolein the receiving culture. To the next statement (Please,comment upon: "Poetry is what is lost in translation".)translators responded in the following ways:

- poetry is what gets lost only when the translation isbad,

- sometimes a translation of a poetic texts is a hybridbetween information about poetry and an anticipationof poetry,

- Frost’s statement does not mean that poetry cannot betranslated, but that poetic speech cannot betransmitted from the original speech and is thuspartly inaccessible,

- Frost’s concept is not completely true. It may betrue in America where verbatim translations of poetryare common, and where anthologies are oftenbilingual,

- in some cases it is impossible to translate poetry,because there are no corresponding words in Slovenianlanguage with which one would name a certain part ofreality that is found in the original poem,

- it is necessary to translate poetry, and certainlynot impossible.

Strangely enough, the translators have decided toparticipate in the project of translating American poetryfor Slovenian readers, yet they believe that poetry iswhat gets lost in translation. I have to admit that I

expected more comments which would reflect the thinkingexpressed by Susan Bassnett. Let me quote her in extenso:

In comparison with the quantity of poetryactually produced, the amount of redundantcommentary must be at least double. A great dealof this literature claims that poetry issomething apart, that the poet is possessed ofsome special essential quality that enables thecreation of a superior type of text, the poem.And there is a great deal of nonsense writtenabout poetry and translation too, of whichprobably the best known is Robert Frost’simmensely silly remark that ‘poetry is what getslost in translation’, which implies that poetryis some intangible, ineffable thing (A presence?A spirit?) which, although constructed inlanguage cannot be transposed across languages.(1998:57)

Contrary to our expectations, almost half of thetranslators agree with Frost, yet they participate intranslations.Answers to the next question (What image about modernAmerican poetry does The Anthology of the 20th Century AmericanPoetry present to the Slovenian readers?) can be summarizedto the following:

- a rather out-of-date picture of American poetry isoffered to the readers, which is, considering thedate when the anthology was published,understandable,

- the choice of younger poets was rather arbitrary,- anthologies are authorial and reflect personal

preferences of the editor,- the majority of poems in the anthology use the so-

called free verse as if American poets of the 20th

century had not mastered classical poetry forms,- the image is highly relevant.

The above answers reflect that not many of the translatorswere aware of the problems related to the literary canon.

Next question (What is the main reason for publishinganthologies of translated poetry?) triggered the followinganswers:

- the initiator was the editor,- anthologies sell better than collections of

individual authors- publishers’ incentives are important- such collections represent a challenge for poets,

literary critics and editors,- money seems to be the main motivating factor,- the most important reason is that an anthology of

translated poetry is an attempt to bring together twoliteratures/cultures.

Only a few translators provided an answer to the nextquestion (In what way did target readers influence yourdecisions?). One said that this was a question only forthe editor; the other said that he did not understand thequestion and the third replied that the influence of thetarget readers was insignificant. To the next question(What do you think about the Notes on authors printed atthe end of the book?), the following answers are worthmentioning:

- this is the best part of the book,- Notes are rather trivial, they offer little

information, and they say nothing about the originalcontext of the poems,

- Notes are OK, but a longer essay about this part ofthe American literature is missing.

The answers to the next question (How (if at all) can ananthology of translated poetry shape the literary canon inthe target literature (culture)?) are:

- the influence is smaller than in the case of originaltexts,

- perhaps it may turn out to be a potent influence onsome younger poets,

- translation of poetry has influence on the poetics ofthe translator,

- anthologies are first contacts between differentliteratures and as such may have influence on thetarget literature,

- anthologies shape the literary taste of people.

To How many poems were newly translated and how many poemswere old translations? translators reply:

- all translations are new,- all except Eliot and Pound is new,- cannot remember exactly, but everything was reviewed,

improved and in some cases corrected.

The eleventh question (In the context of translationstudies, what other relevant issues should be raisedregarding anthologizing translated literature?) was askedin order to trigger new relevant questions from thetranslators (and the editor). Only one translator raisedan important question, namely, that only such a selectionis relevant which is important for the source literatureas well as for the target literature.As to the last question (What were the main difficultiesduring the process of translation?), some translatorsclaimed that they did not have any problems during theprocess of translation, others mentioned problems with themeaning of words, some pointed out problems with placenames, and others stated problems with the inner rhyme orproblems with the vocabulary selection.

In many cases, the awareness of translation problemsof the translators was limited to the questions of “false”and “correct” translation, the translators wereunconscious of many important issues regarding translationof poetry that have been raised by many researchers(Bassnett, 1997; Grosman, 1989; Venuti, 1995).

7. Conclusion

The starting point of my paper was that translation isperformed with an eye on the target culture literature andthat it is a matter of what the recipient system acceptsand sometimes modifies to suit its own requirements under

certain cultural, communicational, linguistic and othercircumstances. Translation is also a rewriting of anoriginal text, which reflects a certain ideology and apoetics; it is manipulation, undertaken in the service ofpower, which can occasionally introduce new concepts, newgenres or new devices to the recipient culture/literature.According to Lefevere (1990:14) translations involvetrust: the audience, which does not know the original,trust that the translation is a fair representation of it.Of course, the same holds true for anthologies thatrepresent a part of a certain literature – the representedimage is supposed to be trustworthy by potentialreadership.Anthologizing is certainly an exercise in compromising.The anthologizer has to decide on the translations (whatto select for the anthology, who should translate, should(s)he use existing or new translations); on the translator(should (s)he be the only translator or not); on the imageof the anthology (what image of the source literature toproject in the target language, i.e. which writers andwhich poems should be selected). Of course, the imageprojected often has very little to do with any reality,and is rarely a mirror image of the image that is commonto readers of the source literature.Above all, my purpose was not to analyze mistakes made byanthologizers. Lackadaisical as some of them occasionallywere, the fundamental oversight on their part was thatthey failed to recognize that it is impossible tointroduce the reality of source literature into a targetlanguage by means of an anthology of translations. On theother hand, it is possible to create an image of thisliterature for the target language audience. Being a smalland developing literature, it is extremely important forthe Slovene literary system to critically accept theOtherness provided by the image offered by numerousanthologies of translated poetry. I believe mycontribution may also prove useful for futureanthologizers who have to become aware that if asubstantial body of research (Even-Zohar, 1990a,b;Lefevere & Bassnett, 1998; Sheffy, 1990; Toury, 1980,1995; Venuti, 1992) demonstrates that old concepts intranslation studies are wrong, it is time for them to

adopt new ways of thinking. Presently, little rethinkinghas been done by translation practitioners in Sloveniawith regard to their translation practice andanthologizing. Consequently, the anthology I have examinedcannot be said to have produced a clearly recognizableinfluence on Slovenian literature.

In anthologies of translated poetry translators inevitablyproject their own understanding of texts and have theirown image of what constitutes American poetry of the 20th

century which is most likely based on their idea of whatconstitutes literary excellence. Choices made by editorsof anthologies rely exclusively on their feelings andintuition. Consequently, The Anthology of the 20th Century AmericanPoetry published in Slovenia is a combination of incompleteif not misleading information about the Americanliterature of the 20th century.It is impossible to tell with certainty if The Anthology of the20th Century American Poetry was well-received. The virtuallibrary of Slovenia (Cobiss) offers access to informationfrom over 400 Slovenian libraries, of which 76 hold a copyof this anthology, published in 1986. The fact is that thebook has not been reprinted and that all copies of theanthology are available for outside loan does not speak infavour of huge popularity. Similarly, it is impossible toclaim that, in Slovenia, anthologies of translated poetryhave become a principal means of canon reform, or tobelieve that the main decisive factor for publishing themare sales figures. Yet one thing is almost certain,namely, that The Anthology of the 20th Century American Poetry is thefirst in the series of anthologies representing poetriesof different national literatures (Russian, English,German, Spanish, French, etc.) encouraged to be publishedby CZ, mainly because the publisher must have believedthat these literatures are most likely to be held in highesteem by potential Slovene readers.The study of prefaces is a reasonable activity because Ibelieve that much of what has been said about translationuntil recently has been said in prefaces, which are at thesame time speech and action: on the one hand, they offerinformation, but they also seek protection from the

outrages of power, on the other hand, they propel the worktowards new markets and audiences.

References

Avanzo, Miha (1986) (ed.). Antologija ameriške poezije 20.stoletja. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.Bassnett, Susan (1997). Comparative Literature. A CriticalIntroduction. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.COBISS http://www.cobiss.si/cobiss_eng.html (accessed onAugust 22, 2012).Bassnett, Susan (1998). Transplanting the Seed: Poetry inTranslation. In: Constructing Cultures. Essays on LiteraryTranslation (ed. Susan Bassnett & André Lefevere).Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Sydney, Johannesburg:Multilingual Matters.Bergles, Ciril (1994) (ed.). Sodobna španskoameriškapoezija. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.Even-Zohar, Itamar (1990b). The "Literary System". In:Polysystems Studies, Poetics Today, 11:1, pp. 27-44.Even-Zohar, Itamar (2005). Polysystem Theory.http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/papers/ps-th-r.htm(accessed on October 19, 2012).Friebert, S. & Young, D. (1989) (ed.). The LongmanAnthology of Contemporary American Poetry: 1950 to thePresent. New York, London: Longman.Grafenauer, Niko (1998) (ed.). Orfejev Spev: antologijasvetovne poezije. Ljubljana: Nova revija.Grosman, Meta (1989). Bralec in književnost. Ljubljana:DZS.Hall, Donald (1990[1962]) (ed.). Contemporary AmericanPoetry. London: Penguin Books.Hall, Donald (1991[1969]) (ed.). American Poetry: AnIntroductory Anthology. London, Boston: Faber and Faber.Hoover, Paul (1994) (ed.). Postmodern American poetry: ANorton Anthology. New York, London: W.W.Norton & Company.Kovič, Kajetan & Niko Grafenauer (1998) (ed.). Antologijanemške poezije 20. stoletja. Ljubljana: Cankarjevazaložba.

Lauter, Paul (1994) (ed.). The Heath Anthology of AmericanLiterature (2nd book, 2nd edition). Lexington: D.C.Heathand Company.Lehman, David (1998) (ed.). The Best American Poetry 1988.New York: Scribner Poetry.Lefevere, André (1985). Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites?The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewritingin an Alternative Paradigm. In: The Manipulation ofLiterature. Studies in Literary Translation. Ed.: TheoHermans. London: Croom Helm.Lefevere, André (1992a). Translation, Rewriting, and theManipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.Lefevere, André (1992b). Translation/History/Culture; ASourcebook. London: Routledge.Lefevere, André (1992c). Translating Literature: Practiceand Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York:The Modern Language Association of America.Lefevere, André (1995[1990]). Translation: Its Genealogyin the West. In: Translation, History and Culture. Ed.:Susan Bassnett & André Lefevere. London: Cassell.Lefevere, André (1995). German Literature for Americans1840-1940. In: International Anthologies of Literature inTranslation. Pp. 40-55. Editor: Harald Kittel. Berlin:Erich Schmidt.Lefevere, André & Susan Bassnett (1998). Where are we inTranslation Studies? In: Constructing Cultures. Essays onLiterary Translation. Editors: Susan Bassnett & AndréLefevere. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.McClatchy, J.D (1990) (ed.). The Vintage Book ofContemporary American Poetry. New York: Vintage Books.Parini, Jay (1995) (ed.). The Columbia Anthology ofAmerican poetry. New York: Columbia University Press.Piercy, Marge (1987) (ed.). Early Ripening: AmericanWomen’s Poetry Now. Hammersmith, London: Pandora Press.Prenz, Juan Octavio (1987). Roža in bitka. In: Belakrizantema. Antologija španske poezije XX. stoletja. Ed.:Udovič, J., Košir N. & Pavček T. Ljubljana: Cankarjevazaložba.Randall, Dudley (1988[1971]) (ed.). The Black Poets. NewYork: Bantam Books.Sheffy, Rakefet (1990). The Concept of Canonicity inPolysystem Theory.

http://www.tau.ac.il/~rak e fet/papers/rs_canon.htm (accessed on August 21, 2012)Strojan, Marjan (1996) (ed.). Antologija angleške poezije.Od za č etkov do konca 20. stoletja . Ljubljana: Cankarjevazaložba.Toury, Gideon (1980). Translated Literature: System, Norm,Performance. Toward a TT-Oriented Approach to LiteraryTranslation. Poetics Today. Vol. 2:9-27.Toury, Gideon (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies andBeyond. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Vendler, Helen (1990[1985]) (ed.). The Faber Book ofContemporary American Poetry. London, Boston: Faber andFaber.Venuti, Lawrence (1992) (ed.). Rethinking Translation:Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge.Venuti, Lawrence (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: AHistroy of Translation. London: Routledge.