Translation and Chaos: Poetry Translators’ Agency in a Non-Hegemonic Network. A Digital Humanities Approach. Raluca Andreia Tanasescu Under the supervision of Marc Charron, Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral degree in Translation Studies School of Translation and Interpretation University of Ottawa © Raluca Andreia Tanasescu, Ottawa, Canada, 2018 ii Translation and Chaos: Poetry Translators’ Agency in a Non-Hegemonic Network. A Digital Humanities Approach. Raluca Andreia Tanasescu School of Translation and Interpretation University of Ottawa Abstract: This project examines the role played by chaos in shaping and defining the translation activity in a non-hegemonic context, with a focus on literary translation. Based on English-language U.S. and Canadian contemporary poetry translation into Romanian between 1960 and 2017, it challenges the ‘major’ vs. ‘minor’ dichotomy and moves to show that a transnational framework and a networked understanding of translator agency are much better suited to account for the complexity of a translation sociography. Acknowledging a necessary shift that draws on an economy of attention more than on an economy of production (Cronin 2016), as well as on Michael Cronin’s politics of microspection and on Kobus Marais’ paradigm of complexity (2014), my work takes distance from the Bourdieusian dynamics of power that has prevailed in translation studies since the late 1990s and favors a network approach that accounts for disruption, decentralization, and voids. This dissertation seeks to acknowledge the role played by chance, chaos, and self-regulation in shaping the activity of literary translation through the deployment of a mathematical model that has been at the core of Web 2.0 since its very inception. In doing so, my research sets out to complement Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory with the mathematical notions of network and network of networks. I endeavor to explore the webs of connectivity as they appear in real-life contemporary poetry translator networks with the purpose of potentially laying the groundwork for a possible redefinition of translation across society and media of circulation. Translation can be conceived, I propose, as an act that is essentially, simultaneously and irreducibly linguistic, cultural, iii and social, but also individual and collective, material and virtual, online and offline. Under these circumstances, I conclude that a critical re-examination of translation studies in micromodernity through a Digital Humanities lens becomes necessary, if not imperative. Keywords: chaos theory, networks, literary translation, translator’s agency, translation studies, digital humanities. iv Traduction et chaos : l’agentivité des traducteurs de poésie dans un réseau non-hégémonique. Une approche numérique. Raluca Andreia Tanasescu École de traduction et d’interprétation Université d’Ottawa Résumé: Ce projet examine le rôle joué par le chaos dans l’élaboration et la définition de l’activité de traduction dans des contextes non-hégémoniques, en mettant l’accent sur la traduction littéraire. En s’appuyant sur la traduction de poésie contemporaine américaine et canadienne de langue anglaise en roumain de 1960 à 2017, ma recherche remet en question la dichotomie « majeur » contre « mineur » et formule l’hypothèse selon laquelle un cadre transnational et une compréhension en réseau de l’agentivité des traducteurs sont plus adéquats pour rendre compte de la complexité d’une sociographie de la traduction. Par la prise en compte d’un changement nécessaire qui se réclame d’une nouvelle économie de l’attention (Cronin 2016), de la politique de microspection (Cronin 2012) et du paradigme de la complexité (Marais 2014) je cherche à m’éloigner de la dynamique bourdieusienne du pouvoir qui a régné en traductologie au cours des vingt dernières années, en proposant une approche en réseau qui interroge la perturbation, la décentralisation et les vides qui apparaissent dans les réseaux des traducteurs littéraires, notamment dans le cas des traducteurs de poésie. Cette dissertation vise à reconnaître le rôle joué par le hasard, le chaos et l’autorégulation dans le façonnement de l’activité de traduction littéraire à travers le déploiement d’un modèle mathématique qui a été au cœur du Web 2.0 depuis sa création. Dans ce but, cette recherche combine la théorie de l’acteur-réseau de Bruno Latour et les notions mathématiques de réseau et de réseau de réseaux. Je me propose d’explorer les réseaux de connectivité tels qu’ils apparaissent dans le monde des traducteurs de poésie contemporaine en roumain pour jeter les bases d’une v redéfinition de la traduction à travers la société et les médias de circulation. La traduction peut être ainsi conçue comme un acte essentiellement, simultanément et irréductiblement linguistique, culturel et social, mais aussi individuel et collectif, matériel et virtuel, en ligne et hors ligne. Dans ce contexte, je conclus qu’un réexamen critique de la traductologie dans le cadre de la micro- modernité, et ce, suivant les enjeux des sciences humaines numériques devient nécessaire, voire impératif. Mots-clés : théorie du chaos; réseaux; traduction littéraire; agentivité du traducteur; traductologie; sciences humaines numériques. vi To Maria Sophia and Chris, with whom I connect the dots. vii Acknowledgements I would like to express my hearfelt thanks to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the province of Ontario, University of Ottawa, and the Faculty of Arts for the consistent and substantial financial support I received during my studies: I have never felt so encouraged and valued before and I truly hope this research meets at least part of their expectations. It has been a priviledge to be a Vanier Scholar and to be calling Canada home for the past five years. This network of institutional support would have been much more difficult to navigate without the invaluable guidance from my thesis director, Marc Charron—the center of my Canadian clique. Thank you so much, Marc, for believing in me and for always having my back. Few people are fortunate enough to meet a supervisor like you, so generous with his time and knowledge, so open and versatile. The slightest variation in picking my thesis director back in 2012, while browsing the School’s website on a rainy day in Paris, could have led to a totally different outcome. Most of my inspiration in writing this thesis comes from my husband, Chris, who has infected me with his enthusiasm for Digital Humanities and code, and for poetry translation. Thank you for bringing home piles of books, for always scouring libraries in search of the latest releases and the most sophisticated research, for parenting a rambunctious toddler while I worked, for setting my alarm every night, and for always standing by my side. You, Sophia, and I are the best team ever. I would also like to thank Luise von Flotow for her support during various stages of my studies and in organizing the conferences for the School of Translation, to Elizabeth Marshman for her encouragement and support during my Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship application, as well as to Salah Basalamah and Rainier Grutman, who both had a good word for my research at some point during these five years. Finally, many thanks to my mother for her unconditional love and for feeding me good food—perhaps too good—, to Seymour Mayne, who inspired me to pursue a doctorate in translation studies, and to my extended family for the good vibes they always send my way. It has been an exciting time and I cannot believe this journey is over. viii Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. xi List of Tables and Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. xi INTRODUCTION 0.1. Behind the Scenes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 0.2. Summary of Objectives, Questions, and Theoretical Framework …………………………….. 3 0.3. Corpus and Research Design …………………....................……………………………………………… 22 0.4. The State of Research ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 CHAPTER 1. EXPLORING ‘MESS’ AND CONNECTEDNESS 1.1. From Macro- to Micro-Modernity and Digital Humanism in Translation Studies ……… 47 1.1.1. Partial Pluralities …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48 1.1.2. Everything Is a Mess: ‘Minority’ and ‘Minorness’ …...……………………………………….. 51 1.1.3. A New Politics of Precariousness: Acting at the Edge of Chaos …………………………. 60 1.2. A Chaos Paradigm: Applying Network Theory in Investigating Translators’ Agency...... 63 1.2.1. Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies ……………………………………………………… 63 1.2.2. Actor-Network Theory ……………………………………………………………………………………. 75 1.2.3. From Network Society (Back) to Network Science …………………………………………. 84 1.2.3.1. Castells’ and Van Dijk’s ‘Network Societies’ ……………...………………………… 84 1.2.3.2. Network Science and Graph Theory ……………...…………………………............ 88 1.2.4. Chaos in Translation Networks ……………...…………………………................................ 92 CHAPTER 2. TRANSLATOR AND AUTHOR NETWORKS IN PERIODICALS (2007-2017) 2.1. Micro-Charting Poetry Translation Networks in Romanian Print Literary Journals ....... 99 2.1.1. Endotic Travels into Contemporary Poetry Translation in Print Periodicals ......... 101 ix Table of Contents (continued) 2.1.2. Functionalist Description of the Corpus ............................................................... 105 2.1.3. A Network Analysis ……………...………………………….................................................. 118 2.1.4. Network-Driven Translation and the Poetics of Fecundity ……………...…………….. 134 2.2. (Dis)Connected Transnationalism ……………...…………………………..................................... 144 2.2.1. Translation and Transnational Movement ……………...…………………………............. 144 2.2.2. Translating the Land of Exile ……………...………………………….................................... 153 2.2.3. Transnational Literary Barters ……………...…………………………................................. 157 2.2.4. Literary Kinship, Scholarly Work, and Academic Mobility .................................... 167 2.3. Poetry Translation in the Technoscape ......................................................................... 181 2.3.1. A New Economy of Attention .............................................................................. 181 2.3.2. The Connective Turn: Translation as Echo-Statement ......................................... 184 2.3.3. Translators—the Digital Connection ................................................................... 188 CHAPTER 3. CHAOS OUT OF ORDER: TRANSLATIONS OF AMERICAN AND CANADIAN CONTEMPORARY POETRY INTO ROMANIAN BEFORE 1989 3.1. Translators’ Agency in a Centralized (‘Star-like’) Translation Network ......................... 196 3.2. The Earliest Connections to the ‘New World’ (1867-1918) ........................................... 201 3.3. U.S. Poetry Translation between the Two World Wars ................................................. 209 3.4. Contemporary U.S. and Canadian Poetry in Author-Collections after World War II ...... 215 3.5. Contemporary U.S. and Canadian Poets in Anthologies during Communism ................ 220 CHAPTER 4. ORDER OUT OF CHAOS: THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE COMPLEX POETRY TRANSLATION NETWORK AFTER THE FALL OF COMMUNISM .............................. 241 4.1. The Network Effect: Translating Rock Lyrics ................................................................. 243 x Table of Contents (continued) 4.1.1. Rock Lyrics as Subversion: Jesus Christ Superstar ............................................... 246 4.1.2. Bob Dylan Translated by Musicians .................................................................... 253 4.1.3. Dylan, a Feather in a Literary Cap ........................................................................ 260 4.1.4. Three Times Jim Morrison .................................................................................. 264 4.2. Romanian Mainstream and Indie Publishers of Translated Poetry after 1989 .............. 268 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 287 On the Usefulness of a Digital Humanities Approach in Translation Studies ..................... 293 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 295 Annex 1 – Partial Corpus of U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Translations in PP (2007-2017) ......................................................... 322 Annex 2 – NetworkX Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Translations in PP (2007-2017) ......................................................... 328 Annex 3 – NetworkX Analysis of the Transnational U.S. and Canadian Poetry Translations in PP (2007-2017) ................................................................................. 341 Annex 4 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary American Poetry Author-Collections Translated before 1989 ............................................................ 345 Annex 5 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary Canadian Poetry Anthologies Translated before 1989 ........................................................................ 348 Annex 6 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary American Poetry Anthologies Translated before 1989 ........................................................................ 350 Annex 7 – NetworkX Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Author-Collections Translated between 1990 and 2017 ..................................................... 354 xi List of Abbreviations ANT: Actor-Network Theory bc: betweeness centrality CAS(s): Complex Adaptive System(s) cc: closeness centrality DH: Digital Humanities NLR: National Library of Romania PP: print periodicals U.S.: United States TS: translation studies List of Figures and Tables Chapter 2 Figure 1a. Network of contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translations in PP between 2007 and 2017 (without node labels) .................................................................. 121 Figure 1b. Network of contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translations in PP between 2007 and 2017 (with node labels) ....................................................................... 122 Figure 2a. The giant component (G0) in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (without node labels) .......................................................................................................... 123 Figure 2b. The giant component (G0) in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (with node labels) .......................................................................................................... 124 Table 1. The size of the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP ..................................... 125 Figure 3. The G1 component in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (Translators: L. Rusu, T. Moțet, A.E. Baconski, P. Solomon) ............................................... 126 Figure 4. The G2 component in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (Translators: F. Samulescu, D. Dragomirescu, S. Mihalache) .............................................. 126 Figure 5. Translator O. Iacob (bc = 0.3878) ......................................................................... 128 Figure 6. Translator A. Văsieș (bc = 0.1816) ....................................................................... 129 xii Figure 7. Author J. Ashbery (bc = 0.1177) ........................................................................... 129 Figure 8. Translator C. Tanasescu (bc = 0.1160) ................................................................. 130 Figure 9. Author C. Simic (bc = 0.0926) .............................................................................. 130 Figure 10. Translator N. Cassian (bc = 0.0856) ................................................................... 131 Figure 11. Translator L. Ofileanu (bc = 0.0852) .................................................................. 131 Figure 12. Author C.K. Williams (bc = 0.0583) and D. Levertov (bc = 0.0583) .................... 132 Figure 13. Author S. Plath (bc = 0.0577) ............................................................................. 132 Figure 14. Transnational and academia-related translations in PP (2007-2017) – G ......... 150 Figure 15. Transnational and academia-related translations in PP (2007-2017) – G0 ....... 152 Figure 16. The circulation of translations in the Zona Nouă complex network .................. 192 Chapter 3 Figure 17a. Contemporary U.S. poetry collections translated before 1989 ....................... 199 Figure 17b. Network of publishers, authors, and translators before 1989 ........................ 200 Figure 18a. Anthologies of contemporary Canadian poetry before 1989 .......................... 226 Figure 18b. Contemporary Canadian poets selected both by Univers and Albatros ......... 227 Table 2. Number of poems per contemporary author in the Albatros and Univers anthologies of Canadian poetry .......................................................................................... 228 Figure 19. Network of U.S. poets published in anthologies before 1989 ........................... 238 Chapter 4 Figure 20. Contemporary English-language U.S. and Canadian poetry collections translated after 1989 ............................................................................ 269 Figure 21. Translation projects associated with mainstream Paralela 45, Humanitas, Cartea românească, and Editura fundației culturale române ............................................. 271 Figure 22. Translation projects associated with mainstream Polirom and indie Scrisul românesc .................................................................................... 278 1 Translation and Chaos: Poetry Translators’ Agency in a Non-Hegemonic Network. A Digital Humanities Approach. INTRODUCTION 0.1. Behind the Scenes As in any captivating movie script, arriving at the idea behind this research has involved a great amount of conflict and struggle. This is only to confess that writing this thesis has been quite a journey. In 2013, my proposal started as a classical literary translation research project, whose main objective was to examine how various American poets came to be translated into Romanian and how this process fitted with the process of globalization. Then I entered a second stage, in which I began to realize that globalization was too homogenous a process and what I wanted to account for in my thesis-to-be appeared as one of the many stories of a ‘minor’ literature translating from the English. It didn’t feel accurate, so what was I to make of this? How was I to go beyond the dynamics of power professed by Pierre Bourdieu through the words of Pascale Casanova (2004)? It seemed that I was doomed to remain in the well-structured republic of letters. So I trusted my intuition, which sensed there was something rotten in this republic: my experience as a Romanian-language translator and publisher did not fit many of the categories engendered by the translation theories I was exposed to. The most important question I asked myself was: If there is a dynamics of power, is it unidirectional? The natural thing to do for me was to look into how ‘minorness’ handles power and what the mechanisms to overcome a ‘minor’ status are. While investigating practices related to Romanian-language translation and publishing, I noticed that the digital world was gaining more and more traction, as it presented the perfect 2 opportunity to overcome the much invoked ‘sense of space.’ The third stage of my journey was marked by the realization that this ‘sense of space’ and the many space-related metaphors in translation studies tether rather than advance research on minorness, as they naturally foster default communities, such as the nation-state, and admittedly limit research to how such states manage their economic resources. ‘Tethered’ is the best word to express how my research felt for the first four years of my studies, but it was a necessary phase that helped me realize that more freedom was needed. My research had to be positively animated by the freedom I experienced as a translator and publisher who has actually never been tethered by the lack of economic resources of her country of origin, but was always connected to others: other cultures, other translators, other economic resources. Thus it became clear to me that more fluidity and flexibility were essential in translation studies in order to account for the ‘mess’ that slipped between the cracks of clear-cut categories. This thesis is about ‘mess’, about the freedom to perceive ‘noise’ as ‘sound’ and randomness as a new order. It is an attempt to find a place for chaos in translation theory or, rather, to unleash it. 0.2. Summary of Objectives, Questions, and Theoretical Framework What has been keeping translation studies (TS) in a perpetual quest to define itself—with rather relative success at the end of each turn, I dare suggest—has been the inherent non-linearity, instability, and uncertainty of all the elements that collude to the realization of a translation. The stumbling block, to my mind, has always been the complex nature of translation and the potentially chaotic essence of the processes that surround it, alongside our difficulty to acknowledge such a composite reality in one single theory. Things have become even more puzzling when this field 3 decided it was time to emulate the social sciences during a period when social sciences themselves were considering their own complexity by means of chaos theory (Albert 1995, Kiel and Elliott 1996, Byrne 1998, Byrne and Callaghan 2014) or assemblage theory (DeLanda 2006)—which, drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus (1980), provided a bottom-up framework for accommodating complex forms of causal productivity. Instead of doing the same, TS has borrowed mostly relatively stable macro-structural concepts from sociology (such as “field,” or “system”) in an attempt to deal with its own shortcomings and as a result of a rather significant structuralist trandition and left out, intentionally or not, any natural science conceptualization. Although scholars like Jean-Marc Gouanvic (2014) and Sergey Tyulenev (2014) rightfully see “habitus” as a micro- structural approach, this notion cannot be divorced, in my opinion, from the whole theoretical apparatus of Bourdieu’s theory of cultural fields. In other words, using Bourdieusian concepts only selectively and in a way that matches the composite realities of a certain practice, in our case literary translation, is very far from their proponent’s intentions and vision. To my mind, it would be far- fetched to admit that translation is not a field (Gouanvic 2014; Heilbron and Sapiro 2018) and use ‘habitus’ to designate a clustering of life experiences that may have an impact on translators’ activities. There are many possible scenarios for such a state of affairs. Perhaps notions like Bourdieu’s field of cultural production or Luhmann’s systems were seen as bringing along a certain legitimacy and a sense of stability to a discipline that was defining itself. It may also be that the developmental hierarchy that characterizes natural sciences was not a good match for the subservient translator and their agency, until recently considered mere creators of second-rate texts. It may also be that humanists are simply hesitant to the prospects of mastering frothy mathematical formulae and 4 complicated visualisation techniques. As we shall hopefully see as we move along, frothy math will not be needed, nor will I be engaging in any glorification of cyberspace or technology. The multifarious nature of the processes that accompany translation and the role played by translation in defining cultures alongside a number of cultural memes is appropriately described by Michael Cronin’s 3T paradigm: trade, technology, translation. Cronin rightfully argues that “the tendency to exclude any of the three components tends to lead to isolationist or exclusivist readings of a particular culture.” (2013b: 3) He also complements this paradigm with the notion of gap in resources in the host culture and conjectures that rather than looking for values in another context cultures look for resources, a position he equates with the cultivation of fecundity. Both the notions of trade and technology that accompany translation are thus grounded in and reflect on translator’s agency, making it one of the most important units of analysis in this field. In addressing agency, Kobus Marais (2014) sees translation related to the social and the cultural in so far as a translator’s action has an influence on the social reality or on the other agents, but he also addresses the case of translators’ possible lack of intent towards agency. This is a valid observation and, to my knowledge, there is no scholarship drawing on the idea of non-agency, although not all literary translators translate because they wear the label of literary translators by profession. Some may translate because rendering a certain author in their language is a natural response to their meeting with that foreign author and this is how they become labelled as literary translators. Others do have a sense of agency and use translation as literary capital added to their own literary persona. Multiple scenarios are possible, as will become apparent in the following sections, and in order to capture best the complexity of this phenomenon, translator’s agency needs to be researched, I suggest, 5 within what Willard McCarty terms the digital social humanities,1 an umbrella-notion that situates any translated text in its contex of production, dependent on all levels on the agent(s) producing it and on the medium of circulation (online or offline). The discourse and methods of the digital humanities are an exercise in complexity themselves. Complexity is essential to multiple readings and interpretations in academic research and coding is seen as essential to disentangling multiplicities. As McCarty notes, chaos underpins the economy of plenty as a fructifying and terryfing cornucopia in contemporary research (McCarty 2016: 73). In electronic scholarly editing, for instance, Mary Nell Smith notes that complexity in general and coding in particular provide “a healthy self-consciousness” about the circumstances of knowledge creation (2004: 313). Complexity is also permanently sought in charts and maps (Drucker 2016), in preserving the multifariousness of cultural heritage through mapping “the complexity of cities – as embodied, lived in, built, imagined, and represented spaces” (Presner and Shepard 2016: 209), in the study of the human-computer interfaces (Ruecker 2016: 400), in our delegations to technology as in the Internet of Things—“this process of offloading tasks to the Internet of Things, new possibilities come into being, some as synergetic effects and others as unintended consequences” (Jørgensen 2016: 49), in linked data and semantic web as essential tools for understanding the complexity of humanists’ discourse and of the disciplinary developments in the humanities (2016: Oldman, Doerr, and Gradmann 2016: 255), in relation to data storage, hypertextual history, or virtual reality systems. 1 A term occasionally used by Willard McCarty—author of Humanities Computing (2005), internationally recognized for his achievements in digital humanities—about research situated on the border between digital humanities and social sciences. 6 Digital materiality, “the palpable bits and bytes of electronic hardware and software that are ubiquitous, that leave traces, and that can be read as evidence of the creation, dissemination, reception, and preservation of these new communication forms” (Shep 2016: 322), has therefore become paramount in any discussion on human agency, especially in the context of cultural communication, where chaos theory engenders “a Sisyphean perspective […] on cultural practice: the activity of making sense by way of recourse to chaos, noise, and chance circumstance is an interminable task because power, like desire, is protean and omnipresent.” (White 1991: 276) Studying uncertainty and digital materiality by means of information visualization has gained more and more ground lately (Lorna Hughes, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas 2016: 160), although scholars like Johanna Drucker (2016) have argued that the graphical approaches to the digital humanities, although perceived as very effective, need to be complemented by more criticial- humanistic methods of reading the data because graphs alone cannot render the complexity of the information they represent. This is because “data models exclude certain properties of data, which poses problems in a field such as humanities that works primarily with highly complex, heterogeneous, and nonconcrete data.” (Zundert 2016: 342) Also, the formalized data model reduces “to a certain extent the richness and complexity of the body of information,” (id.) and so it invites complementary approaches such as “rapid shuttling” (Kirschenbaum 2009 cited in Hayles 2012) or “algorithmic criticism” (Ramsay 2011). This is precisely what I do in this dissertation: framing English-language poetry translation in contemporary Romania as a complex human activity animated by uncertainty and modeling it study as a pendulum between network visualizations and traditional descriptive translation scholarship. The purpose of this research is to examine poetry translators’ agency in a non-hegemonic context and in relation to the contacts they establish with authors pertaining to other cultures (in 7 my case, U.S. and Canadian contemporary poets). To this end, I endeavor to unearth relationships and practices that are not currently addressed by the theories of translation and that shed a positive light on translators as connectors. The non-hegemonic context of choice is Romania, a country which has never been perceived as socially, culturally, ideologically, or economically influencing other cultures significantly. On the flip side, it has always sought to align itself to the latest literary trends, started its own trends, and its intellectuals have never had a static mode of existence, but have participated to a large extent in a deeply transnational traffic of cultural goods. Translation has always been part of this dynamics. In this context, my research is concerned both with translators living and publishing between the borders of this nation-state and with Romanian translators from the diaspora or in a constant state of mobility between the host culture and the culture translation departs from. In order to achieve this analysis, three research objectives have been set. First, I shall address the risks of imbricating uncritically the label ‘minor’ in the discourse of TS by emphasizing the heuristic potential of minorness and precariousness in addressing translatorial agency. Small European nations and minority cultures have yet to gain a firm foothold in our field as translation is still largely studied in contexts that it usually departs from (i.e., global languages like English). Therefore one of the problems this investigation will address is the underrepresentation of small nations/cultures in TS as a result of the liberal use of a plethora of monolithic terms and dyadic associations, such as ‘European vs. non-European’, ‘major vs. minor’, or ‘center vs. periphery’. Instead, I shall embrace the inherent precariousness of the ‘periphery’ and propose a paradigm built on the possibilities of chaos. Second, I undertake to demonstrate that acknowledging the role played by heterogeneity in translation within a paradigm that allows for the phenomena’s uncertainty, indeterminateness, and 8 randomness (Callon et al. 2011) is a more revealing and thus productive stance than assigning translators to premade categories that they need to fit in no matter their background or the associations they form. To this end, I shall devote a large portion of this thesis to the investigation of the networks Romanian poetry translators form with the authors they translate in order to establish both the complex relationships that lattice such networks and to offer a comprehensive image of a translation landscape that could otherwise appear as simply fragmented, or chaotic, and lacking creative potential. Finally, the third and final objective of this dissertation is to demonstrate that a paradigm built on the possibilities of chaos unearth the full extent of human agency and creativity, which I shall exemplify through the concepts of “poetics of fecundity” and “network-driven translation.” Thinking of all the things I know about American and Canadian contemporary poetry translation in Romania—a small world in which I belonged for over ten years—and trying to fit them into the confines of various theories I have been trained in for the past five years triggered a number of questions that are meant to address a certain general intellectual discomfort I felt. How do poetry translations come into being since they are neither economically, nor socially influential? How are theories based on the global book flows addressing this situation? Can we still speak about the translators’ invisibility in the age of instant access to information and ubiquitous computing? What are these translators’ lines of flight? How do they associate among themselves and how do they get in contact with the contemporary authors they translate? And so on. Faced with the rigor of academic research, all these musings turned into several research questions that will hopefully guide my way out of the reductionist quagmire and make room for a more non-linear way of thinking about translators and translation in general. 9 Chapter 1 is meant to address two more theoretical research questions. First, how valid are the grounds for labeling a culture as ‘minor’ or ‘peripheral’? Although recent work in TS has started to broach this topic (Folaron 2015, Flynn 2012, etc.), the ‘major vs. minor’ conundrum is still very much operational. The example of Romania illustrates best Itamar Even Zohar’s definition of ‘peripheral’—one of the smaller nations of Europe—and is also mirrored by Cronin’s argument according to which the linguistic diversity of Europe has been levelled out by postcolonialism. Relatively recent research on the internationalization of our field is extensive. In 2002, Șebnem Susam-Sarajeva started to advocate for a multilingual and international TS, and, while still employing the same schismatic, monolithic paradigm, she acknowledged that “there is no way of measuring centrality or periphery.” (Susam Sarajeva 2002: 194) She also linked research carried out in ‘exotic’ languages to a peripheral condition of the respective scholars. Other scholars like Harish Trivedi (2006) or Maria Tymoczko (2005) called for using words from other languages (from Hindi to Igbo) for a theoretical reconceptualization of translation. What if there is no one center, but ‘multiple center(s)’ that could provide invaluable knowledge for the field? Scholarly articles on the downsides of English as a universal means of exchange abound. However, there are very few contributions dedicated to translations into lesser-known languages2 in the most prestigious academic journals. The main reason is related to the pervasiness of globalization’s homogeneous effects as a research topic and to an interest in how translation into ‘major’ languages increases the symbolic capital of ‘minor’ cultures. One of the main effects of globalization has been cultural homogenization, that is, the reduction of cultural diversity (or a shrinkage of the world) through the promotion and diffusion of a wide array of cultural symbols, be they physical objects, customs, ideas 2 Examples are offered in the literature review section (0.4. The State of Research). 10 and values, coming from dominant cultures. Cultural reductionism also refers to treating cultural agents as similar, no matter the culture they are grounded in, and not acknowledging their unique ways of operating within that culture and between the cultures they connect via translation. Instead of looking at cultures that translate more, we look at those that translate less, but which confer on the authors they translate a high degree of symbolic capital. This situation is entertained by the relatively difficult access to ‘mainstream’ TS of scholars that work in ‘minor’ contexts and translate into lesser-known/used languages although they use English as a lingua-franca (Susam-Sarajeva 2002). In a recent response to another fellow academic’s work on translation and migration, Edwin Gentzler characterizes the state-of-the-art in our field as “an exciting time for Translation Studies, as it expands internationally, looking at more languages and cultural traditions for translation, including those of many immigrants’ home cultures, and as it turns inward intra-nationally, looking more at minority languages and immigrant groups within any given culture.” (2013: 342, emphasis mine) Research on minority languages understood as the languages of cultural minorities (as opposed to national languages) has been indeed extensive. Important authors like Cronin have drawn upon and emphasized the relational and dynamic dimension of the concept of ‘minority’, along with the fact that it is always “the expression of a relation and not an essence,” (2009: 170) as well as a status that makes a language more prone to translation, since small cultures are disproportionately important in terms of translation productivity. However, Cronin himself (2003) and other authors, like Mona Baker (2014), could not disregard the fact that, from an economic and political standpoint, all languages other than English have become minority languages. At the same time, according to Lawrence Venuti, a “minor language is that of a politically dominated group, but also language use that is heterogeneous, that deviates from the standards, varies the constants.” 11 (1998b: 136, emphasis mine) It becomes obvious that ‘minority’ and ‘minor’ are sometimes used interchangeably. If we were inclined to think that ‘minority’ refers to a language-culture like Catalan or Quebecois, for example, whereas ‘minor’ refers to any small nation, such as Romania or Ireland, by comparison to economically and politically more powerful ones, the many confusing definitions in TS, paired with other leveling binarisms such as ‘center vs. periphery’, beg the question of the heuristic value of these terms. Much of the work that has been done on translator’s agency (Pym 1998; Simeoni 1998; Inghilleri 2005; Gouanvic 2006; Wolf and Fukari (Eds.) 2007; Pym, Shlesinger, and Jettmarova (Eds.) 2006; Milton and Bandia 2009) has been based on Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘practice’, ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ (1973), therefore on the ‘physical’ (much in line with the concept of nationhood) and hierarchical world. Also, a large part of this work has been centered on interpreters and on translators as political agents. In this context, Michaela Wolf sees the translation ‘field’ as highly problematic, because translators do not have long-lasting positions in this field and they have to renegotiate their status all the time (2007). As Gouanvic noteworthily observes (2014), besides translators that act as political agents or translators that aim at gathering as much literary capital as possible by translating reputed authors, there are translators “by necessity,” that seldom compete for a certain position and render the solubility of a concept like ‘field’ problematic in relation to translation studies. To these examples, I would like to add translation for survival, which can never be associated with the producer’s ‘habitus’; not could it be socially sanctioned because of its context of production. The methodological contributions of sociology to the study of translation are unquestionable. However, as I have mentioned before, these sociological perspectives on translation in the context of globalization have often emphasized hierarchies, power relations, and 12 macroscopic analyses hardly ever providing more detailed accounts from the field. One very pertinent example is Cronin’s observation in Translation and Globalization (2003) that English became the only ‘major’ language, while all others are largely perceived as ‘minor’. Another equally pertinent example is Casanova’s World Republic of Letters and her article on translation as unequal exchange (2004). To Casanova, translations from dominating cultures/fields to dominated ones help the latter gain literary capital, while the opposite brings consecration to the dominated one. The role of literary translators from the so-called ‘dominated’ cultures is still largely ignored because the advent of globalization shifted TS researchers’ focus on the international circulation of books and on the role major publishers play in this respect (Venuti 1998a; Pym and Chrupala 2005; Sapiro 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010). Equally ignored is a very common practice according to which authors coming from dominating cultures ask to be translated by translators from dominated fields/cultures because that brings them a plus of literary capital at home. Being translated into as many languages as possible, even if not into dominating ones, is a very sought-after status in the literary world; and, to our knowledge, this aspect of literary translation has never been pursued as worthy of scholarly research. I shall address this aspect in the case studies presented in section 2.2.3 (Literary Barters). The second theoretical research question addressed in Chapter 1 is related to the possibilities presented by our acceptance and acknowledgement of chaos in translator’s agency in contemporary poetry translation: what are the shortcomings of the proposed macro-sociological theories (Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural fields and especially Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory) and the benefits and risks of using a micro-sociological approach like Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory (ANT)? Several research sub-questions aimed at reconciling these shortcomings and possibilities seem in order. What can we learn from the evolution of social sciences over the past sixty years in terms of acknowledging and fostering heterogeneity? What is a viable theoretical 13 model for the analysis of poetry translator’s agency in all its complexity? What research models and tools are available for exploring this complexity? Sociologically-informed research in TS has made extensive use of the Bourdieusian theory of practice as it presented a much-awaited solution to the long-standing lament that theory had been seldom grounded in practice, or, at least, not sufficiently accompanied by illustrative practical examples. After all, practice makes perfect, and translation is a social, cultural and political act connected to local and global relations of power (Cronin 2003). Bourdieu’s organismic model of society and his constructive structuralism allowed translation studies to turn translators into legitimate subjects of inquiry, capable of acting and free to act (Gouanvic 2005). After a long formalist tradition which placed translated texts at the center of academic reflexion, Bourdieu’s neofunctionalism (or structuralist constructivism) presented an excellent opportunity for translators to become visible, willful producers of meaning, capable to cause change, albeit one that still had to be ratified by the social structure they were part of. Although apparently free to act and acknowledged in the complexity of their habitus, translators were still anchored in the social and dependent on social sanction. Nevertheless, few have embraced Bourdieu’s concepts unaltered as essential for furthering research in TS, and perhaps the most controversial notion of all was “habitus,” i.e., the set of one’s dispositions acquired by action and generating actions. Given its arbitrariness, habitus, in spite of its emphasis on action, still does not place the individual in a state of productive tension with the field. Out of the scholars who contributed to the collective volume titled Remapping Habitus (Vordorobermeier et al. 2014), one the essays most relevant to this discussion is the one signed by Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, who proposes the notion of ‘identity work’ to be added to the notion of ‘habitus’. The Israeli scholar argues that a theory of practice such as the one professed by Bourdieu 14 needs to be anchored, ironically, into practice in order to account for the complexity of translators’ work. The essay continues an endeavor the author began in 2005 with “How to be a (Recognized) Translator: Rethinking Habitus, Norms, and the Field of Translation,” which analyzes the case of contemporary translators in Israel and argues that it is impossible to speak about universal dispositions of translators. Sela-Sheffy undertakes to explain “the tension between the constrained and the versatile nature of translators’ action, as determined by their cultural group-identification and by their position in their specific field of action,” (2005: 1, emphasis mine) although they may be all animated by a struggle for symbolic capital. The contention is that “[w]e cannot take for granted that their role in the production of culture is always secondary and their attitude always passive.” (ibid.: 5) During the past ten years TS scholars have become more and more aware of the complex relationships that underlie translators’ activity, as well as of the need to include technology and new media in the mix. In 2007, META : Journal des traducteurs published a seminal issue on the connection between TS and network studies, curated by Canadian scholars Deborah Folaron and Hélène Buzelin. The introduction offers an excellent overview of the notion of ‘network,’ moving across disciplines and schools with a familiarity and gusto that attest not only to the authors’ intellectual prowess, but also to the potential natural relationship between the two fields. It is here and in Buzelin’s “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies” (2005) that the connection between Latour’s relationist sociology and translation—more specifically in relation to the world of literary translation—is explored for the first time. However unexpected, the Actor-Network Theory becomes a necessary ally to Bourdieu’s sociology. The theory developed by Latour together with Michel Callon and John Law, opposes Bourdieu’s single-world “irreducible, incommensurable, unconnected localities, which then, at a 15 great price, sometimes end in provisionally commensurable connections.” (Latour 1997) It posits that “neither the actor’s size nor its psychological make up nor the motivations behind its actions are predetermined,” (Callon 1997: 2) making room for the idea of a self-made network of actants of different natures, that would include, alongside individuals, objects, hybrids, and quasi-objects. Thus Latour’s sociology of association offers literary translators a way to overcome the deterministic nature of autonomous organizations and a fertile ground for further research into their potential to bring about change by means of personal initiative. In the same issue of META, Șehnaz Tahir-Gürçağlar explores the potential of networks to provide a more comprehensive inventory of historical facts related to literary translation, using the case of popular literature in Turkey. She aptly notes that the notion of “context” has been vaguely defined in TS and that contexts are actually made of layers of contexts, from the micro- to the macro-level. Citing Law, who argues that the world cannot be fittingly explained and neatly structured using social categories because it also contains a high degree of mess (“vague, diffuse, unspecific, slippery, emotional phenomena that do not display much pattern at all” (Law 2004: 2)), Gürçağlar advances that TS might mismanage findings in order to make them fall into certain categories, instead of allowing apparent “chaos” (that is, the reality of practice) to generate theories: I would like to suggest that the world of translation also involves a high degree of mess, confusion and disorder and that our current critical theoretical frameworks are forcing these conditions into set categories, organizing the disorder into seeming order, sometimes lumping together findings that agree with theoretical expectations and excluding or glossing over those that challenge them. (2007: 725) She sees the drawing of network maps as a felicitous method to account for translators’ agency, for the set of relationships they develop through their everyday work, as well as for the way certain genres relate in surprising ways with other genres. Gürçağlar adds a visual component to the 16 method proposed by Buzelin, thus furthering the inclusive scope of a similar research agenda. Both scholars zoom in on practices and networks of translators in order to provide a better contextualization for the translation practice, instead of first providing the framework and only subsequently dwelling on individual phenomena. However, no matter how promising the beginnings, these authors have not done further research and have not proposed clear research models and methodologies, as we shall see in the section dedicated to the literature review. After tackling these theoretical concerns, I shall move to an in-depth analysis of the networks of contemporary poetry translation into Romanian from U.S. and Canadian English. Chapter 2 is grounded in the lattices of print periodical publications between 2007 and 2017 and builds its complexity argument on the heterogeneity of translators’ agendas, affiliations, and mobility, with notions such as the nation-state and translator’s habitus fading into the background. From a theory of chaos point of view, I shall look for order in a seemingly chaotic network. To this end, my research will answer three questions. The first question is related to the possibilities presented by literary journals for instant, semi-mediated, and fertile translation publication. The second one remains in the realm of periodical publications, but investigates various types of translational agency in a transnational context, inquiring into the possibilities of diaspora and of academic mobility. Finally, I shall address the problem of online translation publishing and specifically answer the following questions: how is digital space enabling translators’ agency and what are its repercussions on literary translators’ status? How does the online reshape the definition of translation? To my knowledge, these issues have never been broached in this field in relation to Romanian translators. Finally, my third assumption is that translators’ access to digital space enhances their chances at becoming agents of literary change and that such a phenomenon is more bound to happen in small cultures, since digital space offers the chance to circumvent the usual economic constraints 17 presented by the more traditional publishing spaces. Decentralization is closely related to the rise of the digital: Decentralization has been lying dormant for thousands of years. But the advent of the internet has unleashed this force, knocking down traditional businesses, altering entire industries, affecting how we relate to each other, and influencing world politics. The absence of structure, leadership, and formal organization, once considered a weakness, has become a major asset. Seemingly chaotic groups have challenged and defeated established institutions. The rules of the game have changed. (Brafman and Beckstrom 2006: 6-7) The relatively low costs of engaging in literary translation in digital space, the diversity of digital publications, and their relative accessibility compared to that of traditional printing allow writers and translators a higher degree of freedom. In small countries like Romania, especially in those with a Communist past, these may be seen as a continuation of the samizdat tradition, the underground publications reproduced illegally by hand by dissident writers and translators and circulated among readers. The minor economic status of Romania on the globalized market and the lack of financial support for the arts in general determined intellectuals to look for alternatives to the costly printing industry and to the even costlier press distribution networks, which charge commissions as high as 45% off of the cover price.3 The last two chapters are built on a chaos-out-of-order perspective and are dedicated to identifying self-regulation and personal initiatives in what can appear as the realm of order: the heavily censored cultural field during the Communist regime and the capitalist market of the post- revolution era. As far as the first context is concerned, I shall describe the corpus and identify those initiatives that were actually the translators’ projects. In the latter case, I endeavor to describe and quantify indie poetry publishing in comparison to mainstream Romanian publishing and to analyze 3 The information offered here is based on our experience in Romanian book publishing. Other available sources generally list even higher retailer discounts: http://bit.ly/2HuxdS3. http://bit.ly/2HuxdS3 18 several translations of the same works or authors that have been tackled by both worlds in hopes of answering a critical question: where is a contemporary author more visible? Most scholarship on translation into Romanian has been centered on the country’s Communist past and has a strong historiographic character, with the exception of Ioana Popa’s Traduire sous contraintes. Littérature et communisme (1947-1989) (2010), which doubles the historical perspective by a sociological one. The few contributions tackling topics related to the country’s post-communist realities have yet to touch upon poetry translation; therefore contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translation in Romania during the past 28 years is virtually unaccounted for. Hence the proposed research endeavors to look closely at all the details related to translators’ involvement in the publication process and to trace all cases of private initiative in contemporary poetry translation in Romania, hoping to reveal new practices and new dimensions of the literary translator profession. The overarching theoretical framework of the proposed project is mainly informed by complexity theory, with a specific focus on network theory and chaos theory. Whereas complexity theory in natural sciences was fueled by globalization, the same phenomenon intensified the reductionist line of thought in TS, as it quickly fostered the pattern of the shrinking world. I would like to offer an alternative view on globalization that follows Cronin’s model of the expanding world, in which micro-cosmopolitanism and microspection are the politics of choice and foster the interconnectedness of the world. A complexity framework begs the adoption of a transnational stance (Jay 2010), which engenders the analysis of translational phenomena outside a national paradigm and calls for contextual specificity. A transnational position also helps us avoid yet another dichotomy—global vs. local/national—by placing translators in what is called a “paradigm of mobility.” (Stephane van Damme cited in Boschetti 2009) Transnationalism lends itself very well to 19 explaining the circulation of ideas and practices and complements the nationalist paradigm offered by polysystem theory or by the theory of the cultural fields. Associating a transnational paradigm to Cronin’s notion of micro-cosmopolitanism—an approach which “seeks to diversify or complexify the smaller unit” (2006: 15) will veer the discussion to particularity, to aspects that are seldom explored in relation to translation under a national paradigm, “show[ing] that elsewhere is next door, in one’s immediate environment, no matter how infinitely small or infinitely large the scale of investigation.” (ibid.: 17) Complexity also calls for considering decentralization and non-linearity. The decentralization of the translation network in Romania gives it a particular strength and increases its scholarship potential for TS research. A groundbreaking book in business management and organizational behaviors, The Starfish and the Spider: the Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations (Brafman and Beckstrom ibid.), explains that traditional, centralized organizations (the spiders), with top- down leadership and rigid hierarchical structure, started to incorporate more and more ‘starfish’ principles, namely principles that are typical of decentralized organizations, whose members rely on the power of and on their relationship with their peers. The book sets out to explain what happens “when no one’s in charge” (ibid.: 5), when “there’s no hierarchy.” (id.): “You’d think there would be disorder, even chaos. But in many arenas, a lack of traditional leadership is giving rise to powerful groups that are turning industry and society upside down.” (id.) In regards to translation, I argue that contemporary poetry translation in Romania echoes a starfish model. This starfish model takes advantage of the fact that there is no central funding agency for the activity of translation, nor an institution to regulate the activity of literary translators. The theoretical framework I shall use for explaining the differences between a centralized system and a decentralized one cannot be limited to Bourdieu’s theory of the fields, as the latter 20 does not take into consideration action, agency, and subjectivity unless they are ultimately socially sanctioned. My first assumption is that poetry translation in Romania functions according to the rules of an actor-network (Latour 2005), whose structure could account for the ‘holes’, for the lack of institutional representation, as well as for literary translators’ initiative, connectivity, use of the latest developments in technology, and sometimes even their lack of accountability. For those very reasons, I shall also refer to Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of ‘rhizome’ (1980) in order to describe the state of affairs in contemporary poetry translation in Romania, since it captures multiplicities and allows us to access the network from multiple points of entry. The rhizomatic approach will be doubled by the Actor-Network Theory developed by Bruno Latour together with Michel Callon and John Law, which too was meant to shatter the shackles of dualism. Both will hopefully leave little room for exclusion when accounting for the complexity of translation phenomena and their agents in any given culture. Furthermore, the assumption that the decentralization of literary translation activity in Romania offers more room for personal initiative will be illustrated by employing Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘line of flight’ (ligne de fuite) and ‘nomadism’ (ibid.), two relevant concepts to explain the attitudes of young Romanian translators after the fall of communism in 1989, after a period in which translation activities in Romania followed the logic of a system shaped by Communist propaganda and censorship for almost forty years. The existing scholarship on translators’ agency seldom references translators who discover and translate various authors according to their own taste or even on a whim, and not according to a specific, pre- established agenda that follows the rationale of the globalized book market. The practice of private cultural brokerage is certainly not new, but it is seldom referenced in relation to translation. One notable example is the one mentioned by Venuti under “Globalization” in The Scandals of Translation; he describes how South-American translation boomed in the United States via various 21 private initiatives: “[…] a sudden increase in English-language translations supported by private funding (Barbosa 1994: 62-63, Rostagno 1997).” (1998: 169) The major risk faced when tackling translators’ agency under the auspices of complexity and chaos is chaos itself. An essential step in preventing this dissertation from turning into a “messy business” is defining the corpus and adopting a methodology that keeps the risk of chaotic research on a tight leash. 0.3. Corpus and Research Design The corpus in which I ground my analyses, descriptions, and interpretations consists of Romanian translations of U.S. and Canadian English-language contemporary poetry. By contemporary poetry I chiefly understand poetry that was published after 1960 by poets born during the last decade of the nineteenth century and onwards. In terms of selected authors, it reflects the work of US- and Canada-born poets and of authors of various extractions living and writing in Canada and the United States, as well as transnational poets of American and Canadian origin, because I considered them as manifesting double loyalty. For instance, I included T.S. Eliot, although he lived and worked in England for most of his life, as his work cannot be divorced from his origins4 and most publishers, critics, and literary historians, including the Romanian ones, consider him to be an American. Furthermore, I have not included authors who were not influential in the 1960s although they died much later (such as Roy Helton, who died in the late 1970s but did not publish any collection after 4 T.S. Eliot declared in an interview: “I’d say that my poetry has obviously more in common with my distinguished contemporaries in America than with anything written in my generation in England. That I’m sure of. […] It wouldn’t be what it is, and I imagine it wouldn’t be so good; putting it as modestly as I can, it wouldn't be what it is if I’d been born in England, and it wouldn't be what it is if I’d stayed in America. It’s a combination of things. But in its sources, in its emotional springs, it comes from America.” (Hall 1959: 25) 22 1960). However, I did include Marianne Moore, who died in 1972, but who published in the 1960s and had her collected poems published throughout the 1970s and onwards. I have also considered e. e. cummings (d. 1962) as being contemporary, whose posthumous work was published in 1963 and who had a collection of unpublished poems come out in 1983 and a significant and visible number of selected and collected poems published throughout the past decades. Finally, I have considered T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound as contemporary poets, since they attract the same attention from writers and translators in the target culture as ever, and are evoked frequently in conversations about trends and evolutions in Romania and world contemporary poetics. U.S and Canadian contemporary poetry into Romanian has never been approached as a corpus in translation studies scholarship. Such translations have been analyzed only sparingly and in more general historical contexts, typically related to Communist censorship before 1989. The one notable exception is the monograph dedicated to the Romanian translations of T.S Eliot’s work both before and after 1989 by Roxana Ștefania Bîrsanu (2014). Furthermore, no corpus analysis of contemporary poetry translations into Romanian in periodicals exists, although, as this research shows, periodicals are the richest source of such translations. By addressing these translations as a two-layer corpus consisting of 40 volumes and hundreds of translation features in periodicals I hope to offer a comprehensive image of contemporary English-language poetry translation in this small European country over the past 60 years. However, the two corpora are unequal (author volumes and anthologies: 1960-2017 vs. periodicals: 2007-2017), as a result of my not carrying this research in Romania. My lack of access to Romanian libraries made the two corpora overlap only over a 10- year span. I used two sources for compiling the corpus: translations published in volumes by mainstream and indie publishers, and translation selections published in printed and online literary 23 or cultural journals. As far as the first category is concerned, I have looked into everything that was published starting 1960 (Annexes 4, 5, and 6) and also mentioned a few publications that appeared prior to this date only to emphasize that a certain tradition of self-reliant poet-translators existed well before the established cut-out point. However, I have not included such Modernist poets in my social network analyses—they are strictly limited to contemporaries. In terms of selections published in print periodicals (PP), I have mainly used the bibliographies available at the National Library of Romania (NLR) for journals published between 2007 and 2015. However, since they were not complete, I have added a number of selections that appeared in certain periodicals not complying with the requirements of the legal deposit, but which I deemed as important for the activity of literary translation in our context. The bibliographic references I added thus add two more years to the bibliography compiled by the NLR, thus aligning the two corpora—author-volumes, anthologies, and translation features in periodicals—in terms of end dates. Aligning the two in terms of start dates would have been too ambitious and unrealistic an objective, as I would have had to document probably thousands of entries, and while the network analysis would not have been a problem because of the computing capabilities used, the manual bibliographic work would not have been possible. The overall corpus is by no means exhaustive, but certainly contains most of the translations published within the specified timeframe: 1960-2017. The titles, the overwhelming majority unique instances, are presented partly in footnotes throughout the dissertation and partly in Annex 1. The selections that are also available online are referenced through bitlinks.5 5 Web links shortened on the Bitly link management platform for space purposes. 24 The proposed research methodology echoes Andrew Chesterman’s propositions related to deploying a network as envisioned by Latour: For instance, we might wish to establish what networks exist (in a given context): what the various nodes are, both human and non-human; what the range of the network is; what use is made of each of the nodes; the frequency of links in different directions; the flexibility of the network, the extent to which it remains stable or expands or contracts over time; even the way compromises are born and become necessary. How do translators build and maintain their networks? (Chesterman 2006: 22) and is rooted in network analysis (NA), which measures structural and process-related properties at the level of the whole network and of the sub-networks. NA offers computational ways to wrangle large amounts of data and helps us grasp the structure of relationships between actors by offering a unique ‘outsider’ view of any given associations. This qualitative stage of the research starts with data collection (bibliographic research converted into a data matrix) and the formalization of the model (establishing which aspects of the subject will be computable and in what form, cf. Flanders and Jannidis 2016) and then employs a popular quantitative method: the network consisting of authors and translators as nodes and publication venues as links shall be measured and visualized by means of a dedicated software: the NetworkX libraries in Python, which offers two-dimensional graph drawings (or network diagrams). NetworkX is a package for the creation, manipulation, and study of the structure, dynamics, and functions of complex networks. Network studies have gained a lot of traction lately (Kaufmann et al. 2017) because of the increasing pervasiveness of computational power and because computers are much more able to work in non-linear ways than humans. Furthermore, besides feeding on graph theory, network analysis also uses data mining—the practice of analyzing large databases for the purpose of acquiring new information in computer science—, and information visualization (or visual data analysis)—the study of visual 25 representations of abstract visual or non-numerical data, which take various spatial forms and help users understand intuitively how large amounts of information are organized. Visualizing information as graphs is used “to summarize, present, and enact rich materials visually” (Hughes, Constantopoulos, and Dallas 2016: 160) and is considered to have the potential to generate meaning (Liu 2013) and work hypotheses, normally followed by more formal analyses. All these will be acquired by using Python capabilities, which will determine a series of characteristics further described. Besides its easy syntax and readability, my choice of Python over other available tools, such as Java or Gephi, is motivated by its object-oriented programming, wide support libraries and community development, and integration features. That means it is unlikely for the results of this research to see difference across a wide range of other programming languages, such as C++ or Java. Furthermore, it runs on all major operating systems and, more importantly, it renders reseach accountable—users have access to the algorithms behind its libraries. One downside though is the low quality of the visualizations its produces, but this aspect was outranked by its network computing power. Besides measuring the size of the network (the number of nodes and edges) and the clustering coefficient (a measure of the degree to which nodes in a graph tend to cluster together), I will look into its density—a ratio of the number of edges E to the number of possible edges in a network with N nodes—, as well as into its average degree—the average number of edges attached to a node in the respective network. Connectedness (or connectivity)—how well components of the network connect to one another—is another feature I will examine, as it determines the nature of the structure: full connectedness is a feature of complete graphs (also known as “cliques”), in which a node is connected with any other node in the graph. Connectedness will offer information on the giant component of a graph, which is a single connected component that contains the majority of 26 the links in the network, as well as on weakly connected components—a series of nodes in which there exists a path (a sequence of edges) from any node to any other and on the strongly connected component. As far as centrality is concerned, that is, the measure of the most important vertices in the graph, the analysis will follow four avenues. First, I shall refer to the degree centrality of certain nodes which traditional functionalist analyses would consider to be the most important ones, by analyzing the number of links, or translations, incident on that node, i.e., that particular author or translator. High connectivity may translate into having more resources to attain an objective or to connect in the wider network. Second, I shall examine betweenness centrality, which will help me establish the relative importance of a node by measuring the amount of translation traffic flowing through that node to other nodes in the network. This is done by measuring number of the shortest paths that pass through the node and connect other nodes, therefore it quantifies the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest paths between two other nodes. This measurement is relevant for finding the agent that influences the network flow the most. Third, I shall look into closeness centrality, to determine the shortest paths connecting that node to others in the network. This count helps me find out the agents that are best placed to influence the network the fastest. Fourth, I shall determine the Eigenvector centrality (or the EigenCentrality), which assigns relative scores to all nodes in the network based on the concept that connections to high-scoring nodes contribute more to the score of the node in question than equal connections to low-scoring nodes. That makes this score qualify as the ‘all around’ grade for any agent in the network, as it is considered to quantify the influence of nodes on other nodes in the same network. In order words, the higher the value of the EigenVector, the more prominent a node is in the network. 27 The particular effectiveness of the network analysis lies in its capacity to bring together quantitative and qualitative methods. However, since this is the first analysis ever done of the poetry translation network in Romania, my main concern was related to accuracy, therefore I have not used any of the traditional qualitative methods typically associated with social network analysis, such as participatory mapping, walking interviews with ego and alters, or concentric circles, and opted to offer a qualitative approach based on discourse analysis of second sources, as well as analysis of the translator’s agency at the level of the text. The analysis of the corpus will involve a descriptive approach—that offers an ‘insider’s’ view—focused on paratexts, and will be doubled by an analysis of various other existing materials related to the publication of the respective translations: selections published in online literary journals and in printed press, reviews, interviews with the authors, translators and publishers, press releases, and events organized to promote the translations. In certain cases, I shall briefly compare several translations of the same texts in order to determine how translators’ real-life agency reflects on their rendition of the same source text. Such comparisons shall be made especially between versions offered by mainstream translations and versions that are deemed to be the result of their translators’ agency. Against this backdrop, the information offered by the quantitative analysis will help me understand whether centrality and agency have an impact at the level of the translated poem. Analyzing a corpus of almost forty published volumes and hundreds of selections may appear unfeasible in terms of a reliable quantitative analysis. However, many of these translations are not accompanied by forewords, postfaces, or translators’ notes and the only available information on translators’ agency is to be found online, in the very few interviews with the translators or publishers. For example, the translations of Leonard Cohen’s Book of Longing (Cartea aleanului, 2006) into Romanian are referenced in a total of three sources (interviews, reviews, and publication 28 ads). The volume is not accompanied by paratexts that are relevant to my research. If this is the case of Leonard Cohen, one of the most important contemporary poets in the corpus, the translation of other less visible authors is even less referenced. A rich corpus is, in this case, a safe way to acquire a relevant and sufficient amount of research data on the contemporary poetry translation network in Romania. Before I proceed, it is necessary to discuss the fact that my methodology of choice will have repercussions on the theoretical modelling of this dissertation. For DeLanda, for instance, considered to be Bruno Latour’s symmetrical opposite, “multiplicities are non-relational, (original emphasis) and robustly remain whatever they are, no matter what their relations might be.” (Harman 2010 cited in Byrne and Callaghan 2014). Considerations like these made me use social assemblage theory only a secondary framework in spite of the appeal it presents via notions such ‘lines of flight.’ That adds to social assemblage theorists’ rejection of coding. Coding is at odds with post-structuralism because coding assumes and imposes a tree-like logic of hierarchical, fixed relations among descrete entities, which means that the grammar always pre-exists the pehnomena under investigation). Deleuze also explicitly denounced code as part of ‘the numerical language of control.’ (1992) Unlike these theorists, Latour sees a great ally in coding, especially in terms of the potential of visualizations to provide horizontal, flattened (non-hierarchical) maps. During his opening plenary lecture for the world ADHO6 Digital Humanities conference at the University of Lausanne in 2014—“Rematerializing Humanities Thanks to Digital Traces” (web7)—Latour noted that the digital does not (aim to) create a separate world from what we call the real world, but to “rematerialize all cognitively complex sets of practices,” that is, to emphasize only some of the 6 The Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations. 7 Available on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L2zRoKS0IA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L2zRoKS0IA 29 elements of a world that remains “massively real.” (id.) The computational/digital is to him simply a re-engineering of the real and presents a great promise for the humanities. 0.4. The State of Research Scholars on a More Comprehensive Approach to Translation Embraced especially for the appeal presented by his notion of ‘cultural field’ for various European nation-states (Hayles 1990), Pierre Bourdieu has been at the core of the sociology of translation for more than twenty years. Although Arjun Appadurai (1996) offered a radically new framework for examining globalization in the early 1990s, it is only very recently that TS has become aware of the importance of ethnoscape, mediascape, technoscape, ideoscape, and financescape as alternative spatial renderings of the present phenomena and of the obsolescence of a center-periphery model. The five –scapes proposed by Appadurai are the building blocks of the new reality, which can no longer be confined between national boundaries and thus becomes more fluid, connected to and influenced by phenomena impossible to contain in spatial terms. The four TS scholars that have theorized the need for a complex theory of translation are Anthony Pym (1998, 2007), Michael Cronin (2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2016), Kobus Marais (2014), and Maria Tymoczko (2005, 2007). But well before them, in the late 1990s, an M.A. thesis authored by Martin Malette at Université de Montréal and titled Traduction et chaos : pour une «traductologie dynamique» (1997) made the case for applying chaos theory in the study of translation. Emphasizing the complexity of any translation act, the author proposes Edgar Morin’s theory of complexity (1990) as a starting point for his theoretical discussion and proposes dynamic (or chaotic) systems as a theoretical model both in thinking about translation as a process and in 30 the treatment of the texts, which are considered as chaotic attractors. Although the thesis does not employ any of the methodologies used in natural sciences or in computational linguistics and remains a theoretical reflection, it is remarkable how ahead of its time it was during a period when TS research was for its most part animated by the cultural turn. Malette’s reflection is an excellent early counter-reaction to the traditional binary mode of thinking that has been prevalent in this field since its beginnings. In his Method in Translation History (1998), Pym had only proposed network “transfer maps” as a way to define relationships between cultures out of a correct intuition that political and geographical borders started to dematerialize. It is during the past thirteen years that TS researches have shown a more substantial preoccupation with complexity. For instance, Cronin argues that “[…] one of the most common reasons for a failure to appreciate the complexity of translation is that it is viewed as the activity of the hack, a kind of slavish copying of the original that deserves all the scorn the romantic critic can muster for the curse of the derivative,” (2013b) and conjectures that translators should be rather seen as master craftspeople who have a prime role in the chain of production, especially in the context of ubiquitous computing and instant access to publication venues. He proposes to look at the global shrinking world “by departing from the standpoint of the local, the nearby, the proximate, the micro” (2012: 5) in order to reflect the world in its fractal complexity and, thus, expand it. Kobus Marais approaches frontally the problem of complexity in TS in his Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach (2014). His first condition for achieving a complexity theory in the field of translation that would supersede the prevailing reductionism is to accept that the source and the target are always in an unbalanced relationship: that is, that a translation will always be an over- or an under-interpretation of an original. The second premise is 31 rethinking the field’s notion of ‘system’, which should be seen as “complex adaptive systems” and “actor-network links,” (44) in which agent and system need not be seen as opposites or binaries, but in tension. In Marais’ words, “[…] translation studies need to conceptualize its interests as both agent and system, giving priority to neither.” (id.) Finally, a third condition is to do away with conceptualizing translation using metaphors or equating translation with literature, ideology, politics, or history, for example, according to the turn that is fashionable at one given moment, but to think of translation as “a complex adaptive system constituted by complex adaptive sub-systems, or social reality as a complex adaptive supra-system.” (id.) Marais accepts the fact that rational categories cannot always account for the complexity of the reality and proposes a complexity theory that includes binary notions and analyzes them in supra-systems. Defined as “the principle that the whole has priority over its parts, the assumption that properties of the whole can’t be explained by the properties of its parts (doctrine of emergence), and reservations about any form of simplification” (Voigt 2012: unpaginated), holism appears to be a necessary complementary alternative to inherent methodological reductionism. Indeed, in “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies,” (2005) Maria Tymoczko suggested scholars try to see the field in its entirety, the alternative being the risk of not understanding “the structure of the discipline and the structure of its discursive field, as well as the relationships of particular discourses within it,” (ibid.: 1083) thus affecting, among other things, “the practices that a field such as Translation Studies promulgates in the world.” (id.) One of the ways to do that is by giving up antithetical positions, definitional impulses and generalizing aspects “to translation as a whole,” (ibid., 1084) Thus, Tymoczko advocates for a holistic perspective on the field, yet this approach brings about one major risk: the risk of perceiving the Western and the non-Western as two 32 monolithic opposable notions, without differentiating among those smaller nations that each deserve our undivided attention. Besides re-scoping a theory of translation, there has also recently been an increased interest in carrying out various forensic analyses of how terms like “Eurocentric” or “Western” are used in TS. One of the most pertinent observations is Peter Flynn’s analysis of the way in which various ‘Eurocentric’ theories or concepts travel transnationally and inform other takes on translation. Flynn aptly notes that concepts and theories change once they leave a certain culture and join a new one: In this sense, one might ask what indeed remains of “Western” or “Eurocentric” concepts once im/exported elsewhere? Can we always assume that, in a similar vein to the ghost of corporate capitalism perhaps, they propagate and maintain some sort of nefarious skeletal cognitive superstructure that continues to frame local transformations? Could they not, perhaps paradoxically, also help fire resistant transformations and hence unintentionally subvert themselves? (2013: 48) Instead of simply qualifying former theories as ‘Western’ and eagerly turning to new, more ‘exotic’ ones, Flynn proposes an ethnographic approach that allows ua to examine, for example, translators ‘in their plurality’ (ibid.: 56). He offers the example of a study he carried out on twelve Dutch translators, a study whose results showed a plethora of different views on translation. Ironically, a considerable number of these views were associated with the notion of ‘cannibalism’, typically connected with translation theory and practice in Brazil. Flynn calls his case study “an attempt […] to illustrate briefly how many other translators operating below the horizon of academic visibility have equally insightful things to say about their practices and to share with translation scholars. Like the translators who have become visible to the discipline, they, too, are worth listening to.” (ibid.: 45) Even before authors like Flynn and Michaela Wolf (2014) pointed out the overuse of ‘Eurocentrism’ as a counter-concept that serves a number of research ends, sanctioning a certain discourse as part of a fashionable research agenda that is meant to legitimize a new generation of 33 scholars, Michael Boyden stressed the overuse of this term in relation to identity matters as a counter-reaction to various hegemonic structures, which may lead to “linguistic paternalism.” (2011: 174) That said, scholarship on specific small European nations is not extensive. Most of it is related to the idea of periphery in the context of the politics of globalization and its repercussions on various local cultures, rather than on what new approaches and body of information such nations could contribute to TS. Scholars in transnational literary studies, like Paul Jay, have warned the community of the dangers posed by “making a fetish of the local in its resistance to global cultures and treating that resistance as more important than the detrimental effect it might have on the inhabitants of the so-called periphery.” (Jay 2010: 69) While he ascertains the importance of looking at local cultures outside the dominant ones, he cautions against “a simple-minded binarism that facilely and uncritically celebrates the local as pure culture opposed to rapacious and homogenizing westernization.” (ibid.: 71) Jay also asserts the need to complicate the center-periphery model in the study of globalization; yet this is exactly the paradigm employed by various TS scholars in discussing the international translation and publishing flows in recent years. He posits that “globalization is characterized by complex back and forth flows of people and cultural forms in which the appropriation and transformation of things […] raise questions about the rigidity of the center- periphery model.” (ibid.: 3) In the field of Cultural Studies, Doris Bachmann-Medick calls for overcoming the monolingual condition in the study of culture, largely Anglo-American, and for recognizing the merits of localization in theory formation: “Even in times of global overlapping and mixing, processes of localization seem more important than ever – in order to stem hegemonic tendencies, in order to emphasize diversity, and in order to allow a multi-local production of theory.” (2014: 8-9) 34 Overcoming the monolingual condition translates into a ‘postmonolingual condition’ (Yɪldɪz 2012) that, on the other hand, takes distance from the idea of nationhood. The indeterminacy of nations and languages (Solomon 2014) translates into a focus on agency and practices, into mapping the world multipolarly rather than according to the logic of a center-periphery model. Other scholars, like Liz Medendorp (2013), have started to reassess the effectiveness of notions like ‘periphery,’ ‘margin’ or of other metaphors related to social and cultural situatedness. She notes that the ubiquity and essentialism of translation nowadays begs the question of nuancing a whole series of spatial metaphors, emphasizing the fact that translators should be now seen in their ideological dimension, rather than in their belonging to one culture or another. By the same token, in a world in which small cultures translate more, associating them with the ‘periphery’ invites a more critical treatment. In the same vein, Paul Jay argues that the emergence of a new form of agency calls for a reconsideration of the center-periphery model: […] what we have increasingly come to recognize about the locations we study is that they are not fixed, static or unchanging. We create the locations we study, and this recognition ought to encourage us to continue to remap the geographies of literary and cultural forms. (ibid.: 4) Scholars on Translators’ Agency The first to propose an Actor-Network Theory-informed research in TS was Hélène Buzelin. Her 2005 seminal article examines how marrying Bourdieu’s sociology of fields and Latour’s relational thinking could benefit “a more agent- and process-oriented type of research.” (2005: 193) This theoretical essay marked the beginning of a consistent program of research focused on Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, a research agenda which aimed at examining, by means of ethnographic observation, the production processes within a publishing house rather than the reception of the 35 translation after its publication, aiming to unveil “practices that have received little attention from translation scholars, simply because they seem to transcend ready-made and traditional categories.” (Buzelin 2007: 166). However, her research never did apply ANT, but only the “participant observation” technique. In his 2009 article titled « Le virage social dans les études sur la traduction », Rainier Grutman noted the fact that Formalism and polysystem theory did not dwell enough on translators as agents of literary change. That same year, John Milton and Paul Bandia (2009) edited a volume dedicated to agency in translation. Out of fourteen articles, three are dedicated to poetry translators (Jones 2009, Bradford 2009, and Módici Nóbrega and Milton 2009). Bradford, Nóbrega and Milton address the issue raised by Grutman and discuss the influence certain poet-translators had on Argentinian and Brazilian literatures and how they delineated themselves as genuine agents of change. The essay signed by Francis R. Jones broaches the topic of Bosnian contemporary poetry translation into English and concludes that poetry translators establish networks across a ‘distributed’ space and that they are loyal to multiple cultural spaces. He also notes that anthologists have more influence than translators and that agents from source languages that work in the target language are very active in terms of publishing. Most importantly, he uses the term “embassy network” to refer to the group of agents (translators, editor, and publishers) that work for the benefit of the source poet and source poem and supplements an ANT-informed theoretical framework with insight from activity theory, and Goffman’s Social Game Theory in order to explain the links with the wider macro-social context. This essay is actually part of a consistent program of research focused on literary translators’ ideology (2016) and on the politics of literary translation in general (Jones 2018a, 2018b). Jones dedicated an entire volume to poet-translators as expert-agents (2011) and in one of the essays that followed argues that interpersonal networks are critical for the role that poetry 36 translators play in a literature. He uses the example of James Holmes and shows “how he gradually built networks with living Dutch-language poets, with other poetry translators as a co-translator, editor and mentor, and with fellow editors and publishers.” (2015: 344) Very recently, Diana-Roig Sanz and Reine Meylaerts (2018) co-edited a volume in which not only does literary translators’ agency at the ‘periphery’ take center stage, but oscillates between gatekeeping (“customs officers”) and fellony (“smugglers”), an idea very similar to those leading to the present research. The concept of network was also exploited by Kristina Abdallah (2010), who followed professional translators’ agency in globalized production networks, in a chapter in the Translators’ Agency volume edited by Tuija Kinnunen and Kaisa Koskinen at the University of Tampere. After an approximately five-year break, the topic is again being researched, with scholars like Anne Sophie Voyer (2016) on Barbara Godard’s agency at the level of translated text; Christian Refsum (2017) in Alvstad et al. (2017), on the work of poet-translators and their friendship and community-based networks; Outi Paloposki (2017), on traces of translators’ agency in archival material surrounding translation and on translators’ positioning in relation to the publishers; or Kristina Solum (2017) on how translators’ visibility could benefit translation quality-control mechanisms. Scholars on Literary Translation in the Digital Age Looking at translation from a digital humanities (DH) perspective is nascent. It was not until very recently that scholars like Karen Littau (2016) examined the possibilities of computational media on translation in the context of the media history of this field. A very active scholar working on sociology of translation from a global, network science and digital humanities perspective is Roig- Sanz, who maps transnational processes of cultural transformation in Hispanic modernity by dint of 37 network analysis in her research titled Mapping Hispanic Modernity. Cross-border Literary Networks and Cultural Mediators (1908-1939) (https://bit.ly/2yVkAtD). The unprecedented development and visibility of the Asymptote journal on the stage of online world literature has occasioned in 2017 an essay by contributor Ellen Jones on the topic of digital publishing of literary translation, and a book chapter co-authored by Raluca Tanasescu and Chris Tanasescu on the applicability of complex networks (CNs), specifically networks of networks (NoNs) and their non-trivial topological features, their behavior at percolation, and their connectivity and expansion, in studying multilingual literary translation networks in digital space (Marais and Maylaerts 2018). This latter chapter aims at bringing TS and DH closer to one another and positions itself in the lineage of Pym and Chrupała (2005), among the first to explore a possible intersection with mathematics in a quantitative analysis of translation flows, and especially in that of Tahir-Gürçağlar (2007), who clearly anticipated the merits of a network model in providing various points of access to translation phenomena and in accounting for the mess that is oftentimes disregarded by the systemic mode of thinking: The network map will always appear more chaotic and complex than a “finished” system carrying a hierarchical organization. Yet this will help expand the scope of the field under study and bring out border areas, highlight elements that escape categorization and phase out some of the binarisms inherent in systems theory. In other words, it will capture the “mess” that is normally discarded. (2007: 727) Birgitta Englund Dimitrova’s Experience and explicitation in the translation process (2005), uses triangulation to propose a model for a combined process and product analysis that sheds light on how expertise and experience are reflected in the translation process. Her contention transpires an overt interest in complexity and departs from the same assumption like Gürçağlar, namely that translation as process and translation as product need to be explored in conjunction with each other, and as Marais puts it, in a “paradoxical tension” (Marais 2014: 22). Another contribution that explored the possibilities of a network model is Pym’s 2007 essay describing the web of periodical 38 distribution for a certain literary journal at the end of the 19th century. The added merit of this article lies in its employment of networks in cross-cultural context and in unearthing an inter-cultural sub- network of cultural influence. In recent years, several other scattered but very promising essays have examined the role of translation in small-scale DH projects, such as “Translation Arrays” (2012)—a database of 50 German translations and adaptations of Shakespeare’s Othello that mined information about world cultural variation and change; or the visualization of the Franz Rosenzweig archive at the University of Kassel, one of the many DH projects that contains “salient yet undertheorized moments of translation.” (Handelman 2015) Moreover, the “Renderings” project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2014 aimed to translate “highly computational and otherwise unusual digital literature into English” (Marecki and Montfort 2017), therefore to translate electronic literature between programming languages. Last but not least, Manuel Portela, María Mencía, and Søren Pold (2018) approached the topic of the exclusion of a text’s mediality and materiality via translation, which are not typically seen as part of the translation problem. It is my hope that, alongside contributions like these, the present research will shed light on the auspicious intersection between translation and DH. 39 TS Literature on Romania and Other Small European countries Although the references to translational activities in various European countries are still scarce, the second decade of the new millennium shows an overtly increased interest in the other Europe. In 2017, Larisa Schippel and Cornelia Zwischenberger edited a hefty volume dedicated to alternative TS traditions which included two contributions from Romanian scholars Magda Jeanrenaud and Georgiana Lungu-Badea. While Jeanrenaud (2017: 21-46) notes the skepticism of Romanian letters of any theorizations of translation and of the role played by linguistics in theorizing it, alongside a strong focus on the practice of literary translation before 1989 and a void in any kind of theorization after 1989, Lungu dwells upon research in the same field in Romanian universities (2017: 47-76), after having remarked in one her previous works a complete absence of any Romanian TS theories doubled by a strong practice of translation (Lungu-Badea 2013). In 2010, the reputed journal Translation Studies dedicated a special issue to “Contemporary Perspectives on Translation in Turkey”. The year 2011 saw the first English-translation of Jiří Levý’s The Art of Translation, thus acknowledging the importance of the Czech theorist for the field. Between cultures and texts. Entre les cultures et les textes. Itineraries in translation history. Itinéraires en histoire de la traduction (Chalvin, Lange, and Monticelli 2011) is a collective volume whose purpose was to widen the territory of analysis to the so-called peripheral languages and, most importantly, insist on a more thorough reflection on translation historiography, methodology and research strategies. Born out of an initiative of two scholars based at the Tallinn University, the book offers ample space to the history of translation in Estonia, but also contains contributions on translation in Bulgaria, Hungary, Mexico, Turkey, and the Ukraine. Finally, a more recent article published in 2015 in Translation and Interpreting Studies by scholar Lorenzo Constantino deals with the Polish tradition of translation, long ignored by scholars in the West. Constantino’s essay is 40 actually part of a larger project titled Europa Orientalis. Translation Theories in the Slavic Countries (A. Ceccherelli, L. Constantino, and C. Diddi, Eds.). Contexts, Subtexts, Pretexts: Literary Translation in Eastern Europe and Russia (2011), edited by Brian Baer, calls for the exploration of “alternative, non-Western traditions” (1), probably best embodied by the “Europe internal Other – the cultures of Eastern Europe and Russia.” (id.) The volume features contributions on translation in Bulgarian, Hungarian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Croatian/Serbian, Slovenian, Ukrainian, as well as Romanian. In the introduction to Sean Cotter’s essay titled “Romania as Europe’s Translator,” which capitalizes on Romanian philosopher Constantin Noica’s view of Romania as a culture of translation, Baer assumes that the reason underlying such a vision is “to catch up with the West.” (ibid.: 5) Constantin Noica advocated openness towards translation, seeing Romania as ‘Europe’s translator’ (1973), a reparatory alternative to the status of a culturally and politically small nation who could not be insular and who had to translate out of its national specificity. It is obvious that Noica’s point of view was in line with the later theory of literary polysystems, according to which translations become central in a literature when that literature is ‘peripheral’. In this respect, Romanian critic Paul Cernat talks about “the periphery complex” (2007)—which in Romania’s case is rather a combination of superiority and inferiority. Here, I would explain superiority as the superiority complex of a nation who gave the world very prominent intellectuals (Mircea Eliade, Eugene Ionesco, Emil Cioran, and others), but inferior in terms of political and economic power. In an essay titled “Romania, Europe’s Translator,” Sean Cotter rightfully explains that “[Noica’s] nationalism is a type of internationalism, his concern with definitions of Romania is a concern, first of all, with the country’s connection with the West.” (2011: 79) Indeed, Noica’s concern with translations was not aimed at enriching Romanian literature or culture in general by bringing in important titles from Western Europe, even if most of his 41 translations were from British literature: Charles Dickens – Bleak House, Cecil Day Lewis – Sagittarius Rising or H. G. Wells – The Invisible Man. On the contrary, he used to see translation as a practice which favored laziness and prevented the target reader from learning foreign languages and exploring foreign cultures: I myself have translated and fought, against others, for translations. But as exercises in themselves and in the language, not to satisfy higher cultural needs. Forced to learn other languages, as we were, we benefited and brought benefit to our culture. (Noica 1991: 257, trans. Cotter) Noica insisted on the poly-disciplinarity of Romanian intellectuals, on the adaptability of the Romanian language—“cuvinte care ne pun în măsură să traducem orice din orice limbă” (Noica 1995: 4) (words that allow us to translate anything from any language8)—, and on the national specificity (reflected in a concept like lăutărismul românesc (Romanian fiddlering). Such a complex attitude reflects the infelicities of an insignificant political status in Europe, at the crossroads of empires (Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and Russian) and in the world, but certainly one that merits all the attention of TS scholars. Noica’s attitude also reflects a kind of international nationalism, as long as it encourages the colonizations of Romania, in the plural, including the cultural influence of the West, from Paris to Bucharest, micul Paris (Little Paris), since small nations must not be insular. His philosophy towards translation is all the more interesting as it seems to contradict Venuti’s assertion that all cultures are ethnocentric at home (1995). Even if respectable scholars like Sean Cotter (who is also an active translator of Romanian literature into English) regard Noica’s attitude as confined by the limitations of a certain agenda— “Europe’s translator” is Noica’s version of a particular dynamic familiar to post- colonial studies, the incompatibility of the universalizing, globalizing drives of 8 All translations are mine unless stated otherwise. 42 Western Europe and the colony’s insistence on its cultural particularity. (Cotter 2011: 94) I argue that this is a translational and transnational mode of thought, a perspective common to many other Romanian critics and recent TS scholars, who also see translation as the perfect medium for personal and cultural enrichment, as well as for creativity. Tudor Vianu, one of the most significant critics and translators of the inter-war period, recommended translations as the best way to get closer to the international arena. For him, becoming more international was more important than any kind of ethnocentrism: A translation should not only bring great foreign writers closer to us, but it should also bring us closer to their world. A masterful translation opens new perspectives on a world unknown to us; it makes chords that had never vibrated resound in our soul. A translation should be a journey in a foreign country. (Vianu 1956: 275) This view is actually still very current among Romanian writers and translators. Bogdan Ghiu’s most recent volume, titled Totul trebuie tradus. Noua paradigmă (un manifest) (Everything Must Be Translated. The New Paradigm (A Manifesto)9) (2015), unveils a vision of translation that echoes Noica’s: It’s only when you take yourself seriously that you want bring everything home, to turn the universal into particular, to measure yourself to the best known, that is, to transform your home from a bunker in the world itself. To translate means to create the world at home, to organize local conferences and gatherings of international interest. It’s a kind of imperialism and globalization reversed, in which you don’t invade other people’s homes, but you bring other people to your home, and not as they are, but by translation. (Martin 2015: web) Cotter’s Literary Translation and the Idea of a Minor Romania (2014) focuses, just like many other works on translations from/into Romanian, on the formation of a modern Romania after World War I. The book dwells on a conception of translation as instrumental in shaping a national 9 Bogdan Ghiu’s substantial work as a translation theorist does not appear in any of the two essays on the Romanian translation studies tradition (Jeanrenaud 2017, Lungu-Badea 2017). 43 identity. The word ‘minor’ in the title refers to a mode of conceiving this identity through “intercultural exchange, adaptation, and ironic distance in the ways a nation thinks of itself,” (backcover) as it appears in the works of Romanian canonical critics and philosophers such as Lucian Blaga, Emil Cioran, and, again, Constantin Noica. While Cotter’s work needs to be acknowledged for its contribution to TS scholarship on this small nation, I cannot but note its exclusively historical and theoretical approach, which is not contextualized through examples from the field, although Cotter has translated several important contemporary Romanian literary pieces into English. The scope and historical period covered by his volume also coincide with other contributions on translation in Communist Romania, such as Ioana Popa’s Traduire sous contraintes. Littérature et communisme (1947–1989) (2010), a very well documented fresco of the translations into French in four Eastern- European countries under communism: Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania; and with one of Cotter’s previous essays (2008) on the translation of Soviet literature in Romania after World War II. There are only two significant contributions which tackle the issue of translations carried out in Romania after 1989—the period this project also proposes to account for. One belongs to Muguraș Constantinescu, of the University of Suceava, and is titled « La traduction littéraire en Roumanie au XXIe siècle : quelques réflexions » (2009). Her essay ostensibly addresses various views on translation pertaining to a number of Romanian theorists and TS scholars and is situated against the expansion of the local book market after the 1989 revolution. The so-called ethnocentrism of small nations at home translates in the Romanian translation culture as creativity. For example, what attracts Ioana Bălăcescu in the act of translating, says Constantinescu, is the irreducible distance between the source text and the intuitive expression of that text in Romanian: « C'est précisément la conscience de cet écart qui me satisfait, » (2004: 30) she says, concluding that we all 44 have to assume the courage of being creative. Another example is Bălăcescu’s collaboration with the German scholar Bernd Stefanink, an article titled « Le rôle du traducteur herméneute dans la construction d’une identité européenne, » in which they advocate for the involvement of scholars and translators in creating a European identity by translation, in order to overcome the crisis of conscience currently affecting the continent. The idea of creativity is also present in Irina Mavrodin’s notion of “total translator.” The scholar, translator of Proust and Cioran into Romanian and based at the University of Suceava, was awarded in France the title of “Chevalier des arts et des lettres” for mediating intercultural dialogue. Examples are many and they all reflect the importance of such a small country for our discipline, especially due to the interest shown by Romanian translators, translation studies specialists and professors to the close relationship between theory and practice. The second essay which approaches the market of literary translation in Romania after 1989 is Iulia Mihalache’s « Acteurs du savoir et du savoir-faire dans le marché de la traduction en Roumanie postcommuniste » (2006), an article inspired by her Ph.D. thesis Le modèle occidental et ses traductions dans une société postcommuniste: le cas de la Roumanie (2005). Her article sets out to explore the sociocultural and cognitive role played by translation in Romania after the demise of communism and concludes that, although the circulation of ideas coming from Western Europe had a definite impact, this did not happen without any kind of control (understood as selection) from the part of the translating culture: La “production traductive” dans la Roumanie postcommuniste pourrait être vue comme une oscillation entre transmettre la signification d’une manière rationnelle (envisager Other-as-reason […] et traduire la “normalité” occidentale) ou relier cette signification à une expérience préverbale (approcher Other-as-mystery). Un ethos qui projette la traduction comme étant constamment “contrôlée” par des représentations de la société traduisante. Mais aussi, une traduction solidement ancrée dans et explicable par un recours à l’histoire des croyances de la société traduisante. (Mihalache 2005: 123) 45 Her research shows what has been the extent of the role of translators as intercultural mediators following a decisive moment for Romanian society and culture. The proposed inquiry takes up the task of further exploring that role in a society which has left its Communist past behind and is now trying to position itself in a globalized, transnational world. In doing so, I will model our theoretical framework in such a way that it accounts for the manifold dynamics of the literary translation practice in Romania, for the Romanian translators’ drive to transgress national borders, as well as for their double loyalty—both to the source and to the target culture—and, sometimes, to their lack of agency. 46 CHAPTER 1. EXPLORING ‘MESS’ AND CONNECTEDNESS 1. From Macro- to Micro-Modernity and Digital Humanism in Translation Studies A bird’s-eye view of translation grounded in the assimilationist paradigm of macro-modernity that has been prevailing for the past two hundred years (Cronin 2013) can never be sufficient. As Cronin argues, the difference between cultures has always been seen as oppositional, and all phenomena— including the translation-related ones—have mostly been approached from a comparative cartographic perspective, as physical spaces and boundaries usually invite dichotomous paradigms. Influenced by the inescapable globalization, macro-modernity tried to explain most social and cultural events by building large-scale models meant to compress time and space, to shrink the world and make it more accessible, instead of dwelling on local phenomena in themselves and situating them in the larger picture only after properly describing and understanding them in their complexity. This is what Cronin proposes through his micro-modernity, a notion grounded in the possibilities of the local and meant to expand our understanding of the world. The advantage of micro-modernity’s stance is that it offers hopes of preserving their uniqueness to even the smallest communities ever imagined. Cronin’s concept favors the processes that underpin any association of human beings and emphasizes the webs of connectivity that permeate their existence. In micro- modernity translation and translators can be seen in their becoming, as agents crafting a “cultural complexity which remains constant from the micro to the macro scale.” (Cronin 2006: 15) A first essential step in departing from the particular in my analysis, I argue, is renouncing as much as possible the concept of nation-border by adopting a transnational stance built on the concepts of de-territorialization (a weakening of the ties between culture and place) and of lines of 47 flight (the desire to leave the status quo and innovate) proposed by Deleuze and Guatari (1980). Two operations emerge from such a stance, one that sees translation as a language-centered operation with instrumental effects in the target network and another that sees translator’s agency as central to the act of translation. Translators thus operate within their language but not necessarily between the borders of their nation-state. They are simultaneously disembedded from their local network and re-embedded in larger webs of connectivity, having the local examined through the prism of agents’ belonging to a wider network. These two aspects will be addressed in the dissertation mainly in the subchapters dedicated to translation in print periodicals (2.1) and to transnational translators (2.2). A second step that I take in this dissertation is situating translation in the digital humanities— the recent scholarly trend that endeavors to take advantage of the pervasiveness of artificial intelligence to increase knowledge in the humanities. I will do so only at a modest level, by enhancing our capacity to modeling the corpus through computational network analysis and by proposing, in subchapter 1.2, a paradigm that takes stock of the possibilities offered by chaos theory. Last but not least, I shall dedicate a section (2.4.) to translators that increased their agency by taking advantage of the affordances offered by digital space—thus agents who enhanced their web of connectivity even more, by accessing the virtual world of instant communication. Before I address the exciting possibilities of chaos and complexity in TS and, by way of consequence, in DH, I should refer briefly to the ways in which the field has tried to find order out of chaos by employing a never-ending series of homogenizing dichotomies. Instead of trying to find better terms for the biased phrases to be encountered in this journey, I further suggest we embrace the inherent precariousness of these terms and see what the implications are for the field of 48 translation. No magic powers are needed to foresee the interesting and potentially controversial conclusion that chaos might be an attractive prospect. 1.1.1. Partial Pluralities Translation studies is one of the most open and most interdisciplinary areas of academic inquiry. Yet, translation historiography did not take into account the social aspects related to the production of translations until only recently (Hanna 2016: 67) and ostensibly showed interest in constructing a translation theory, rather than examining how various translational phenomena took shape. However, generating a theory needs “one origin that engenders them, justifies their existence and lends them a logical sequence in the historical narrative.” (ibid.: 68) As a result, several reductionist theories have been built around a slew of dichotomous notions, such as domestication vs. foreignization, self vs. other, or product vs. process, which seems to have concurred with the development of a binary mode of thinking across the discipline (Gouanvic ibid., Wolf 2014). The use of such notions in pairs has long been doubled by a series of spatial metaphors, which place the act of translation between two points: a source and a target, in-between, the West and the Rest. Even translation itself used to be part of such dichotomy, since it would always be compared to the original. If until the late 1980s (and still even well into the 1990s) the majority of TS scholars talked about translation as a process, being interested in how meaning was transferred from the source language into the target language (Berman 1985, Newmark 1988, Venuti 1998, etc.) and focusing mostly on translations from/into languages of international circulation, such as English, French, and German—, in the early 90s their interest shifted towards translation as a product, as a result of the 49 culture in which it was produced (Niranjana 1992, Lefevere 1992a and 1992b, and others). What we call the “cultural turn” of the 1990s was introduced by Lefevere’s Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook (1992c), which proposed approaching translation from a cultural perspective. They were the first to sideline the interest in translation as text only, thus shifting researchers’ attention to matters pertaining to the historical, cultural, and political environment of translations. In her book Translation Studies, Susan Bassnett argues that the history of TS “should not be approached from a narrowly fixed position” (1991/2002: 80) and mentions Carlo Emilio Gadda’s words with reference to a work “that has barely been begun” (id.): “We therefore think of every system as an infinite entwining, an inextricable knot or mesh of relations: the summit can be seen from many altitudes; and every system is referable to infinite coordinated axes: it presents itself in infinite ways.” (Gadda cited in Bassnett id: 81) Bassnett called for more documentation to be produced, more information about changing concepts to be examined and for the setting up of an international venture on translation history. “By understanding more about the changing face of Translation Studies and the changing status of the translated text,” she said, “we are better equipped to tackle the problems as they arise within our own contexts.” (ibid.: 137) Therefore the discipline acquired a strong culturalist orientation, one which has placed it under the sign of ‘cultural translation’ and of its intrinsic power asymmetries. The crisis of representation in ethnography, mirrored by the ‘writing culture debate’ (Clifford and Marcus 1986), has had enormous effects on translation as representation of the Other. However, the reparatory standpoint of postcolonialism was not without fault: turning towards the Other, an ‘other’ who had been neglected and misrepresented for so long, postcolonial scholarship failed to account for the diversity of the West, most notably for the linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe, treating the said ‘West’, no matter how obviously general and ambiguous the term, as a uniform entity (Cronin 50 1995, 1998). A series of new dichotomies gained momentum: ‘the self’ vs. ‘the Other’, ‘European’ vs. ‘non-European’, ‘Western’ vs. ‘non-European’, etc. As Michaela Wolf aptly notes, the publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) was the starting point for an attitude of hostility towards Europe, perceived in “an alleged uniqueness of the region’s cultural tradition and a consequent disparagement of the culture of the ‘other.’” (Wolf 2014: 228) Although scholars realized that translation is a field in which interactions and relations are vital, reductionism did not lag behind. The whole system theory was built on the grounds of yet another binarism, via Itamar Even-Zohar’s second condition for translations to have a central role in a host-literature—that is, when that literature is either peripheral and/or ‘weak’ and the need for new literary forms is strongly felt in its repertoire (Even Zohar 1992). Thus the new binary pair was ‘center’ vs. ‘periphery’, a geographically informed distinction which offered the small nations of Europe as an example of peripheral literatures. Embracing post-colonial peripheries has resulted in implicitly creating other peripheries in academia, most notably exemplified by ‘the other Europe.’ Postcolonial scholars were the first to tackle the crisis of representation, by setting out to explore race and/or nationality from a feminist, “subaltern” perspective (Spivak 1988, von Flotow 1997), to examine such concepts as hybridity, otherness, or marginality (Bhabha 1994), and to generally “change the terms” of the discourse (Simon and St. Pierre 2000), seeing translation as “a site for investigating intercultural contact” (ibid.: 11) and seeking “to recount the asymmetry and inequality of relations between peoples, races, languages.” (Niranjana 1992: 1). Postcolonial TS has focused on formerly colonized sites, such as India, Africa, Ireland, and China, aiming at adding a global dimension to research and understanding the dynamics of power relations and alterity worldwide: “For Translation Studies and literary study in general, adopting a postcolonial frame means enlarging the map which has traditionally bound literary and cultural studies. It means moving 51 beyond the boundaries of Europe and North America, and following more expansive itineraries, moving into new territories.” (Simon 2000: 13) But in doing so, in broaching the crisis of representation, Michael Cronin argues that postcolonial scholars became victims of an imperialist attitude similar to the one they were trying to do away with: [The]… failure to account for the linguistic and translational complexity of Europe in part stems from the tendency by post-colonial critics to reduce Europe to two languages, English and French, and to two countries, England and France. Thus, the critique of imperialism becomes itself imperialist in ignoring or marginalizing the historical and translation experience of most European languages. (1995: 85-86) It so happens though that irony works both ways. Michael Cronin is the General Editor of mTm: A Translation Journal, a publication that endeavors to promote the “discussion on the particularities of translation from major into minor languages and vice versa, as well as of translation between minor languages.” (mTm: homepage) In spite of its praiseworthy objectives, the journal entertains this biased distinction; and it is the biased distinction that sticks like a leitmotif with its readers and contributors. 1.1.2. Everything Is a Mess: ‘Minority’ and ‘Minorness’ in Translation Studies With the advent of globalization, this biased pair gains more and more ground in the discourse of TS: we talk about ‘major’ and ‘minor’ cultures, where ‘major’ seems to be in direct relation to the political and economic power of certain nations and ‘minor’, related to all the others. This decontextualizing and objectifying qualifier (Kant 1998) is regrettable for two reasons. First, it implies a biased, subjective comparison: while ‘small’ refers to a limited size, ‘minor’ means lesser, oftentimes even lower in rank. The second reason is related to this discipline’s insistence on a nationalist paradigm (notably via the polysystem theory and postcolonialism), which other fields, 52 such as literary studies, have finally escaped by embracing transnationalism, by challenging the historical and geographical boundaries of traditional practices (Fishkin 2004, Jay 2010). The sociological turn of the 2000s appears to have strengthened the bias: translation seen as an unequal exchange between dominating and dominated cultures takes place in a world that is highly hierarchical (Casanova 2004, Heilbron 1999, Heilbron and Sapiro 2007), although Pierre Bourdieu’s praxeological mode of knowledge—one professing a dialectical relationship between various governing social structures and translators’ dispositions—presents the perfect opportunity for overcoming reductionism. A large number of contributions in TS focused at the beginning of the millennium on global translation flows, a preoccupation coming from the field of comparative literature. It is only recently that we have started to look more consistently at how translation happens and, more importantly, who is responsible for the things that happen (Buzelin 2005; Chesterman 2009; Milton and Bandia 2009), as well as at small languages that were placed at the periphery of the field by those studies dealing with global translation flows (Chalvin, Lange, and Monticelli 2011; Folaron 2015). Outside academia, important translation journals, such as Asymptote, are committed to a fairer representation of languages: their twenty issues to date host an impressive ‘eclectic platter’ of translations from 92 languages. A recent interview with Icelandic neo-surrealist poet Sjón in the aforementioned journal reveals a similar approach to the one used in this research. Talking about the threat of English over an isolated language like Icelandic, Sjón reveals his preference for a new term that appears to overcome the comparative bias of other proposed terms (i.e., “lesser”, “small”): I use the term “languages spoken by few” instead of “small languages.” It’s a term suggested by our former president, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, a great champion of linguistic diversity. She says there are no big or small languages and that translation 53 proves it. If the Divine Comedy can be translated into Faroese, then the Faroese language is big enough to accommodate it—proving to be as big as Dante’s Italian. (Billey undated: web) It is obvious that designations like ‘minor’ or ‘small’ provoke irritation, even if authors like Cronin point out that we should insist on the relational dimension of the term rather than on its designating an essence (2009). However, I argue it is perhaps time to shift the focus from how languages are related to what actually happens in those languages and cultures, because a small-scale analysis might prove instrumental in analyzing the larger picture. Translation flows are not unidirectional— authors coming from small countries get translated too. And translators into languages spoken by few have a completely different type of agency from translators working in global languages and in contexts in which translation is highly institutionalized. The notion of ‘minor’ language/literature/culture is perhaps one of the concepts that most entertains the antithetical and monolithic positions in TS. And it is an odd situation, especially given the difficulty faced by various linguistics scholars when trying to offer a proper definition of minor languages. The complication lies in coming up with a suitable definition of ‘smallness’: “The criteria based on norms, writing, literature, etc. cannot be applied to the majority of languages and thus cannot provide a general definition of a minor language.” (Wildgen 2003: 154) The same author notes that “[…] minor has connotations of negative value, including: irrelevant, bad, without power, etc. As a relational value, it requires a frame or a norm (average).” (id.) With respect to a weighted index of minorness, for example, the Romanian language is neither statistically, nor geographically, nor historically minor: it has approximately 25 million speakers, its literary language map has clear contours, and it dates as far back as the 16th century. It is not minor in relation to a set of social domains or in relation to cultural representation, as it has a written form and functions as the language of the national media and of the government, for example. 54 The introduction written by Thomas Stolz and Joel Sherzer to the collective volume Minor Languages. Approaches, Definitions, Controversies. Papers from the conference on “Minor Languages: Coming to Grips with a Suitable Definition” Bremen, June 2001 complicates things even further, as his definitions suggest equivalence between ‘minor languages’ and ‘minority languages’. He notes that “[f]rom the point of view of the world as a whole, a national language may be a major or a minor language. […] Minority languages are languages of sociological minorities within particular countries.” (Sherzer and Stolz 2003: viii), but, later on, he posits that “[m]inor languages also typically share certain sociolinguistic characteristics, including lack of written register, no legal recognition, and confinement to restricted domains of use,” (ibid.: ix) even if the characteristics he enumerates pertain to what is commonly referred to as ‘minority’ languages. However, he aptly observes that “[i]n general, minor languages are more diverse as a group typologically than major languages,” (id.) which should make them more interesting for our field of inquiry, since they are “translation cultures par excellence.” (Cronin 2009: 170) Besides the above references in the field of linguistics, other attempts at classifying languages as major and minor prove to be equally strenuous. While the French spoken in Canada falls clearly in the category of minority languages (Bertrand and Gauvin 2003), things are again not clear in the case of Romanian. In An Ecology of World Literature: From Antiquity to the Present Day (2015), Alexander Beecroft proposes a classification that draws on Dutch sociologist Abram De Swaan’s work, according to whom English is a hyper-central language, followed by twelve other languages seen as super-central (among which German, French, Spanish, Chinese, and others, in no particular order), and approximately 130 other central languages, defined as those languages whose speakers “link peripheral languages through communities of bilingual speakers” (Beecroft ibid.: 250). While Romanian does not make the top 25 languages classified by their number of speakers, 55 it ranks 25th in terms of source languages for literary translation and 24th as a target language for literary translations according to UNESCO. The great discrepancy between the number of titles translated from Romanian (5,318) and the number of literary works translated into Romanian (17,966) is a relevant instantiation of why the study of the role played by various small nations is so important for TS, at least just as important as the issues related to the centrality of certain prominent languages. De Swaan’s work and the UNESCO statistics also set the grounds for Johan Heilbron’s essay on the world system of translations (Heilbron 2000), in which he examines the international flow of translated books, basing his analysis on the prominence of source-languages only. He borrows the term from De Swaan for categorizing English as hyper-central, but he uses three different terms for categorizing the others—German and French as central; Spanish, Italian and Russian as semi-central; and all the others as peripheral, although De Swaan includes, as mentioned before, 150 languages in the category of central languages. Heilbron’s entire argument is built on a core-periphery structure, which serves the purpose of a macro-overview of the global translation flows, but which implicitly reduces the role of small countries, no matter how important a role translation plays in those cultures. All these rankings demonstrate the relativity of these terms and classifications: if we take the example of Romanian, according to De Swaan it is a central language, according to Beecroft it is a major national language, while according to Heilbron it is a peripheral language. Heilbron’s article is the perfect example for the way in which the sociology of translation centered its discourse on the power relations inherent in the encounter of cultures, which ordinarily have significant consequences on the production and reception of translations. Aware of their Eurocentric roots and biases (Trivedi 2006, Tymoczko 2007, Gentzler 2008), TS started to aim at becoming more international. One of the most vocal in signaling the setbacks of the increasing 56 hegemony of English as language of international communication, science, and scholarship in TS is Mary Snell-Hornby, who posits that English as a global lingua franca is not a solution for “sophisticated academic discourse dealing with complex acts of communication across potentially all languages and cultures as in Translation Studies.” (2010: 98) She also emphasizes the danger for English to become, besides a means of communication, the sole object of discussion, thus “defeating the very purpose of Translation Studies as international and cross-cultural communication,” (ibid.: 99) and proposes the use of bridge languages other than English, that would give access to the work of scholars coming from countries with lesser-known languages. The predominance of English with the advent of globalization has been qualified by authors like Karen Bennett as ‘epistemicide’ (2007), ‘first-class burial’ of any other language. Snell-Horby’s concerns had already been expressed by Simon (ibid.) in postcolonial and transnational context: Transnational culture studies has tended to operate entirely in English, at the expense of a concern for the diversity of languages in the world. The focus on translation within the global context is necessary to draw attention to language issues in cultural exchange. (Simon ibid.: 12) In spite of all these, there is still an ongoing debate on universalism (entirely built on the European/Western tradition) vs. internationalism in TS. In a recent dialogue published in Translation Studies between Andrew Chesterman and Șebnem Susam-Saraeva, the latter argues that “both Western and non-Western scholars should be encouraged in their efforts in widening and diversifying their understanding of ‘translation,’ not chastised because the very tenets of their arguments are fundamentally misunderstood and misrepresented.” (2014: 337) However, other scholars like Peter Flynn (2013) caution against such an attitude imposing a fashionable research agenda in academia and, referring to Edwin Gentzler’s Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory (2008), questions “what is meant by (outmoded) Western or 57 European translation models.” (46) Flynn criticizes Tymoczko’s use of “Western” or “Eurocentric” as “everything obsolete, narrowly linguistic and deserving of rejection,” (id.) especially since Tymoczko herself notes that geographic positioning is not without fault: “[a]t this point in time, however, when Western ideas have permeated the world and there is widespread interpenetration of cultures everywhere, the terms east and west become increasingly problematic” (Tymoczko 2005: 1). Questioning the heuristic value of the reductionist ‘major vs. minor’ dichotomy is perhaps all the more legitimate since the term ‘minor’ appears to be the result of inaccurate translation. In The World Republic of Letters (2004), Pascale Casanova explains that the American curricula and the field of cultural studies were heavily influenced by various recent French philosophers, of which Deleuze and Guattari and their “highly ambiguous notion of ‘minor literature’” (2004: 203) are of particular interest. This notion stemmed from the concept of “small” literature in the sense used by Kafka, the author the French philosophers were translating from at the time. Casanova notes that the term used by the Czech writer in the German original was klein (small), with an alternative rendition as “minor” in one of the translations of the book, by Marthe Robert. In note 56 to her chapter titled “Small Literatures”, Casanova mentions the fact that another translator of Kafka’s, Bernard Lortholary, had qualified the term ‘minor’ as “inexact and tendentious.” (ibid.: 383). However inexact and tendentious, these are the words that set the foundation of Deleuze and Guattari’s theory—criticized by Casanova as “a crude and anachronistic interpretation” (ibid.: 203) that deforms Kafka’s meaning and as a misunderstanding that led the two French thinkers “astray” (Grutman 2016; Larose and Lapidus 2002): Minor literature is not the literature of a minor language but the literature a minority makes in a major language. But the primary characteristic of a minor literature involves all the ways in which the language is effected by a strong coefficient of deterritorialization. (Deleuze and Guattari 1986: 16, emphasis mine) 58 This first characteristic, a “literature a minority makes in a major language,” refers to literatures such as the one of Quebec or Wallonia (Bertrand and Gauvin, ibid.), for example, or that of colonial India writing in English or colonial Vietnam writing in French, or Native-American literature in English. The following two characteristics shed more light on the concept: The second characteristic of minor literatures is that everything in them is political. […] In “great” literatures, on the contrary, the question of the individual (familial, conjugal, etc.) tends to be connected to other, no less individual questions, and the social milieu serves as environment and background. […] Minor literature is completely different: because it exists in a narrow space, every individual matter is immediately plugged into the political. (id., emphasis mine) The case of Romania cannot be farther from such definition. It is a national language spoken by over twenty million people that has never tried to position itself in relation to any other language considered as dominant, neither directly, not through its literature. The third characteristic of minor literatures according to Deleuze and Guattari is that “everything has a collective value” (ibid.: 17). The explanation that follows makes the major/minor dichotomy as we know it in TS even harder to apply: “In effect, talents do not abound in a minor literature, the conditions are not given for an individuated utterance which would be that of some “master” and could be separated from collective utterance.” (id.) Romania, however small, is home to a very heterogeneous and effervescent literary scene, on which authors hope to make a name for themselves individually and to speak in their own name. The two most important moments of synchronization with world literature—the French Revolution and postmodernism—have created writers with very unique styles and individual voices who, although perhaps sometimes speaking for their literary generations, have very individual messages and tone in their writings. In spite of this three-layer definition provided by Deleuze and Guattari and of its insistence on the potential of minority, the biased comparative paradigm that is still operational in TS appears 59 as highly counter-intuitive. First of all, although the position of translated literature is less central in countries with a significant cultural production (cf. Heilbron 1999), our eyes are still eagerly turned towards such countries instead of the small or less central ones, in which translations and translators have a more visible positioning. Countries like the United States, where translations account for less than 3% of the total yearly book production are referred to in the literature as major cultures, while countries like Canada, where translation has been a modus vivendi for many generations, or Romania, where translations occupy a significant place in its literature,10 most often fall in the category of ‘minor’ cultures. For instance, one of the most cited books in TS is Lawrence Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility (1995), which is entirely built on translators’ experience in the United States—a major culture operating in a major language. In the age of plurality and transnationalism, I suggest we are moving too fast in many essential respects, just as we move too slowly in others that are equally essential. A first step in discovering underexplored sources that are bound to remain obscure if we continue to resort to subjective comparative binarisms is to look at the world as a huge interconnected network and access it through new points of entry. In order to be able to map theories (in the plural!) of a field as open as TS, we have to rethink and re-conceptualize a series of schismatic dichotomies that very often create a gap between theory and praxis or even propagate an erroneous understanding of the underlying concepts. I argue that the ‘major/minor’ dichotomy, along with others such as ‘Western’/’non-Western’ and ‘Eurocentric’/’non-Eurocentric’, ‘global-local’ (Mercier 2014) are fuzzy at best (Cronin 1997, Apter 2013)—even if their intention is to draw clear-cut categories that 10 A study by the National Institute for Cultural Research and Training in 2016 estimates that at least 10% of the book titles published in 2015 were translations. (Ceobanu et al. 2016) Other estimations (Ursa 2016) place the proportion of translated literature anywhere 18% and 30% after 1989. 60 favor formerly un-favored cultures—and do not seem to lead to anything but a chain of entrenched distinctions that clearly miss all essential complications. These essential complications—or complexities, such as those arising from the cultural metabolism of a small nation like Romania— might prove more useful to TS than any reductionist stance by narrowing considerably the gap between theory and practice. However, instead of constantly vacillating between a center and a periphery (Baker 1995), between a process by which people make sense of the world and strive to control it (centering) and an entropy concept related to the process of change (peripheralizing), a balance act is needed in order to account for the complexity of translation. In other words, this balance act means to acknowledge precariousness and chaos as the driving forces of translation. 1.1.3. A New Politics of Precariousness: Acting at the Edge of Chaos To be in a precarious state refers to finding oneself in a situation that is beyond control, unstable, uncertain, and insecure. In complexity theory, the overarching framework of this dissertation, precariousness is the condition for a system to survive and is reflected by a state commonly referred to as “at the edge of chaos,” between certainty and uncertainty, between stability and instability. The precarious state, a transition stage between order and disorder, is thus a condition for life, for the dynamics of a system, and for its evolution, which means that no system is purely chaotic or utterly ordered, otherwise it would be extinct. Ultimately, precariousness is what maintains life and pushes the system to evolve through adaptation. In non-hegemonic contexts, precariousness is embedded in the very fiber the groups are made of (Cronin 2012) and it also fuels our perception of the act of translation as a resource gap in the translating culture, as opposed to a gap in value. Translators’ agency is thus grounded in their 61 need to find resources they do not otherwise have in their proximity and translation is a reparatory act rather than a second-rate product. The literary form that usually fits a more liberal course of action on the part of translators is “poetry, the least translated literary genre, no matter where the translating literature ranks in the global hierarchy of symbolic capital that is so unevenly distributed among national literary traditions.” (Venuti 2011: 127) And it is within a small country that translators are bound to act more according to their own circumstances and literary preferences and less according to some well-defined policies drawn up by publishing companies. As far as the precarious state of poetry as a socially and economically significant literary form is concerned, Venuti posits that “[its] marginality is in fact the first reason to move poetry closer to the center of Translation Studies,” (id.) because “poetry translation is more likely to encourage experimental strategies that can reveal what is unique about translation as a linguistic and cultural practice.” (id.) Precariousness is also the tenet that underpins Deleuze and Guattari’s assemblage thinking in general and the ‘lines of flight’ embarked upon by the body without organs in particular: Multiplicities are defined by the outside: by the abstract line, the line of flight or deterritorialization according to which they change in nature and connect with other multiplicities. The plane of consistency (grid) is the outside of all multiplicities. The line of flight marks: the reality of a finite number of dimensions that the multiplicity effectively fills; the impossibility of a supplementary dimension, unless the multiplicity is transformed by the line of flight; the possibility and necessity of flattening all of the multiplicities on a single plane of consistency or exteriority, regardless of their number of dimensions. (1980: 9-10, emphases mine) Precariousness is therefore present in the multiplicity’s lack of effectiveness in filling all the dimensions of reality, is caused by the multiplicities’ belonging to wider webs of connection, and eventually leads to evolution, to ‘a supplementary dimension’, to infinite possibilities of escaping. Both lines of flight and precariousness facilitate an understanding of how things connect rather than how things are. They both are concerned with how things become. The line of flight is the elusive 62 moment when change happens, therefore it too takes place at the edge of chaos. As far as translators’ agency is concerned, the line of flight happens when precariousness, when the need for resources, is acknowledged. This is when precariousness becomes translation. Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of rhizome “describes the connections that occur between the most disparate and the most similar of objects, places and people; the strange chains of events that link people: the feeling of ‘six degrees of separation,’ the sense of ‘having been here before’ and assemblages of bodies.” (Colman 2010: 232) To them things are not substance, but processes, assemblages of multiplicities within which bodies move along “path[s] of mutation precipitated through the actualisation of connections among [them].” (Lorraine 2010: 147) Their assemblages bear striking resemblance to Latour’s actor-network, whose sequential factor is exploration, similar to the line of flight—the permanent modification of the boundaries and of the reticulated structure of the network that allows for the continuation of the collective, for continuous formations of new associations. Latour’s network acknowledges the precarious dynamic of collectives, as almost all assemblages are built on precarious socio‐material relations. Both Latour and Deleuze reject singular modes of existence and see precariousness as the fueling force of any association or assemblage. By the same token, I would like to propose that precariousness offers a vantage point to TS. First of all, the ‘peripheral’ status of small countries should make them more visible in this field, since they bring new practices and new approaches that are more defining of decentralized systems. In smaller countries, perhaps more so than in others, do translators belong both to the literary and the translation fields, some of them even to a third field—the academic one. Most of the time these three fields intertwine and offer translators lines of flight or modes of exploration that differ radically from what is generally described under the nation-bound paradigm of cultural fields and 63 institutional power. Second, I would like to propose precariousness as an auspicious angle for referencing self-reliant translators as agents of literary change and poetry translation as essentially a collaborative act, the result of a network of individuals living ‘at the edge of chaos.’ Finally, I further suggest that TS theories should take their own precariousness to heart when defining their object and methodologies, and acknowledge that the digital age should permeate scholarly work in the field. At a lower level, I argue for the purpose of this research that a complex view of translators’ agency should take into account how the digital affects and enhances the work of literary translators—translation becomes user-generated. At a higher level, I shall try to incorporate computing power in my analysis of the corpora in order to offer a better understanding of connectedness in the world of literary translation. 1.2. A Chaos Paradigm: Applying Network Theory in Investigating Translators’ Agency 1.2.1. Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies In Translation Theory and Development Study. A Complexity Theory Approach (2014), Kobus Marais builds on social emergence and complexity theory in order to provide a complexity framework for further developments in the field of translation. The need for a more elaborate paradigm in TS was signaled by Salah Basalamah (2005, 2016), Maria Tymoczko (2007) and also by Arduini and Nergaard (2011), who conjectured that the discipline plays with “a plethora of stagnant approaches” and that it needs a new epistemology engaged with “complexity and multiplicity, non-linearity and hybridity.” (Arduini and Nergaard 2011: 9-10) After reductionism-informed modernity and post- modernity, it is time for an epistemology that is able to account for and embrace paradox, says 64 Marais quoting physical chemist and Nobel Prize Laureate Ilya Prigogine, who argued that science’s new way of looking at the world needs to take into account “fluctuations, instability, multiple choices, and limited predictability” (1996: 4): Before, science was about cause, not chance. Now it is about chance, possibility, and probability. In this new view, freedom and determinism also seem to hang together in a complex relationship, at the edge of chaos. (Marais 2014: 21, emphasis mine) To this end, Marais claims that three steps need to be taken: first, TS should acknowledge that its binaries (such as source and target, or agent and system, and so on) are part and parcel of non-equilibrium systems and exist “at the edge of chaos,” in a constant state of tension; second, the field should revisit its understanding of the notion of “system” by looking into complex adaptive systems (CASs) and actor-network links; third, we should quit the reductionist way of seeing translation as something else and of inventing various turns that claim exclusivity over ‘the heart of the matter’ (Singh 2007): rather than seeing either culture or sociology or any other type of phenomena lying at the core of TS, we should consider all these phenomena at the same time and view translation as translation—one of the most complex realities there are: Conceptualized in the terminology of complex adaptive systems theory, translation is both a complex adaptive system constituted by complex adaptive sub-systems and a complex adaptive sub-system that co-constitutes a number of complex adaptive systems, or social reality as a complex adaptive supra-system. (2014: 44) First, what do we understand by complexity? According to systematic theologian Niels Henrik Gregersen (2004: 136-141), there are seven aspects of complexity: descriptive (requiring an endless sequence of descriptions, of which none can be said to be the ultimately right one); constitutional (consisting of many heterogeneous elements that need to be accounted for); organizational (as the constituent elements are structured into highly ordered complexes); causal (with context sensitivity leading to many different causal trajectories); functional (to the extent that 65 the system as a whole can perform various actions according to its various internal rules); and computational. The latter complexity is formulated into two sub-categories: on the one hand, an algorithmic system is said to be complex “relative to the length of the minimal computer program needed to compress and regenerate a given series of numbers;” (140) on the other, the effective complexity of a system is given by the large number of varied patterns “that are neither merely repetitive nor merely chaotic.” (141) That is, effective complexity appears in systems living ‘at the edge of chaos.’ In order to properly describe a phenomenon, I surmise, one needs to address all these aspects in their variety, and while organizational complexity may be tackled by means of computational power, it is still mainly the humanities’ task to address all other aspects by describing them qualitatively and by critically assessing them. Second, what is a system and what is a complex adaptive system? Systems are now commonly defined as unified wholes, be they social, cultural, or economic, separated from other macro-units by spatial or temporal boundaries. The notion gained ground in the 19th century through the work of physicist Nicolas Carnot in the field of thermodynamics and in the 20th century the concept gained prominence due to the General Systems Theory advanced by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1988). According to a more recent definition proposed by biologist Ernst Mayr, they are animated by two properties: They act as wholes (as though they were a homogeneous entity), and their characteristics cannot be deduced (even in theory) from the most complete knowledge of the components, taken separately or in other combinations. In other words, when such a system is assembled from its components, new characteristics of the whole emerge that could not have been predicted from a knowledge of the constituents. (Mayr 1988: 15) They are also essentially hierarchic (consisting of sub-systems which consist of sub-systems, etc.), distinct from the environment around them, and may be closed or open, the latter allowing 66 interactions with the environment, while the closed ones are characterized by a deterministic model, according to which no random development is possible. As far as open systems are concerned, they allow for exchanges of energy, matter, or information with the environment, therefore they are in a constant state of flux. When the interactions with the environment result in a rupture in the system’s symmetry, such as is the case of extreme weather phenomena, for example, a system is dissipative (Prigogine 1996). Dissipative structures, descriptive of a system that is far from equilibrium and a result of irreversible processes, have been successfully deployed in the study of complex systems. The latter are difficult to model either because of the non-linear relationships, interactions, and dependencies between their parts or because of a complex relationship with their surrounding environments. They are caused by a variation in their energy flux and even the smallest variation may lead to great differences in the results. These variations are calculated in natural sciences using non-linear differential equations, a breakthrough after the long-time use of the linear ones. Their use in describing weather as a dissipative system has led meteorologist Edward Lorenz to the discovery of chaos—that is, the impossibility of predicting the development of natural processes unless the initial conditions are 100% known, as even the smallest change in these initial conditions could lead to greatly varied results. Let us keep chaos at the back of our minds for now—I shall get back to it shortly. In terms of complex adaptive systems, Santa Fe complexity experts John H. Miller and Scott E. Page explain that “[a]t the most basic level, the field […] challenges the notion that by perfectly understanding the behavior of each component part of a system we will then understand the system as a whole.” (2007: 3) Complex systems are a subset of non-linear dynamic systems and have been best and most extensively applied to the study of society, as they were found to account for the heterogeneity of the agents, for their emergent behaviour, as well as for phase transitions in social 67 environments. They are self-organizing, dynamic, and built on positive feedback (contained in the notion of ‘feedback loops’), they evolve from simplicity to greater complexity and are sensitive to the smallest change in the initial conditions, which can lead to unpredictable outputs. Such systems have been successfully deployed in the study of complex situations that arise in various social systems, like healthcare, international relations, or the military, because of their potential to solve problems for which traditional, hierarchical forms of control and negative feedback are ineffective. Dealing with heterogeneity as a key driving force in social worlds may be what makes the notion of complex adaptive systems interesting to Marais in the field of translation, alongside their capacity to prove that horizontally-distributed agents, be they individuals or institutions, can be just as effective in certain contexts as hierarchical agents can be in others. The complexity of the translation system at the level of agent-based modelling is given by the dynamics of the system, agent interaction, and agent heterogeneity. Unlike traditional social sciences, which are focused on the social average, the analysis and modelling of such systems promise to offer a more complete image of translators’ actions, which may range from chaotic behaviours to assumed, intentional agency. Using the example of economic systems, Miller and Page (ibid.) argue that homogeneity in such a complex system can only account for the proper functioning of institutions, but cannot explain an economic crash. Therefore, for instance, complexity theory presents itself as a proper research paradigm to account for translation phenomena outside institutional contexts or for aspects that may be otherwise classified as accidental or unusual. And, in the context of my research, complex adaptive systems and complex networks (subsets of such systems) may offer a pertinent model for the analysis of translators’ agency in non-hegemonic contexts. However, as I argue further on, we see the notion of network as potentially bearing more fruits for the study of translatorial action than that of system; also, I would conjecture that, before conceptualizing 68 translation as a system, it is important to look at its various components through the lens of network science. A third question related to the relevance of complex adaptive systems thinking for TS is: what are the features of these complex adaptive systems and, more importantly, how could they be used, alongside complexity theory in general, to properly research translators’ agency? Also known as open systems—“system[s] in exchange of matter with [their] environment, presenting import and export, building-up and breaking-down of [their] material components,” (Bertalanffy 1988: 4)— or dynamic systems (in which motion is present), they present the “emergence of complex large-scale behaviours from the aggregate interactions of less complex parts.” (Holland 1995: 11) There is a hierarchy insofar as there are “levels” of existence that emerge from one another—not from permanent additions to existing layers and certainly not from the primacy of human action. Moreover, they are animated by a set of emergent properties, such as aggregation (extracting what is not important, retaining what is, and treating what remains as similar), large scale behaviour (behaviour of less complex agents that tend to act the same), non-linearity, diversity, and allowing for the existence of flows—“from node to node via a connector with the nodes acting as agents and the connectors as possible interactions.” (Marais 2014: 33) These emergent properties are concerned with the interaction between the parts and not with the individual actions of the parts. Emergence is doubled by downward causation, as complex systems also acknowledge the influence of the whole on its parts. Furthermore, simple laws generate complex phenomena—this is “how large numbers of relatively simple entities organize themselves, without the benefit of any central controller, into a collective whole that creates patterns, uses information, and, in some cases, evolves and learns.” (Mitchell 2009: 4) Also, all systems have histories that act as initial conditions for evolutions. Their historicity is a function of unidirectional 69 time: open systems are subject to various flows of information and need to interact with other systems for their survival. One of the most important features of complex adaptive systems is self-organization. As Marais notes, “agents act locally, with no view of contributing to the whole” (Marais 2014: 31) and the whole emerges from local interactions. An equally essential feature is that complex systems do not operate in a state of equilibrium, as that would mean their death. Instead, they live ‘at the edge of chaos,’ a state in between order and chaos. It is at the edge of chaos that complex systems manifest their self-organized criticality,11 tuning themselves to critical states through active, decentralized processes (Bak et al. 1988). Later on Bak hypothesized that self-organizing criticality is a universal phenomenon that applies to complex systems in general and not only to the complex adaptive ones. Finally, their behaviour can be predicted only by observation, because non-linearity makes prediction almost impossible12 (cf. Mitchell 2009: 20 et infra). Murray Gell-Mann (1994) emphasizes that the beauty of CASs lies in the fact that they are not preprogrammed and reactive, but that they process information in such a way that it allows for surprise and creativity. Enlarging on the functional organization of such systems, Gell-Mann notes that they need to be able to identify regularities, or patterns, in the environment, by avoiding to perceive randomness as order and order as randomness. Once a pattern is identified, the system must be able to produce a schemata, or an internal model, that is able to identify any further similar regularities. One condition for achieving that is the capacity to filter out noise. Another condition for a system to be complex is that the produced schemata are not fixed, but emergent and adaptive. 11 Conceptually illustrated by the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile model, self-organized criticality is a process by which “many composite systems naturally evolve to a critical state in which a minor event starts a chain reaction that can affect any number of elements in that system.” (Bak and Chen 1991: 46-53) 12 As Marais rightfully notes, the impossibility of predicting behaviour renders causality very problematic. 70 These schemata are able to produce variants that compete among themselves and to anticipate surrounding activities. Finally, CASs are related to the environment by feedback loops that allow them to change and adapt. While the appeal of CASs clearly stems from the variety of processes involved and from their potential to self-regulate, they are also subject to a number of mechanisms meant to make unpredictability more manageable. John H. Holland (1995) describes a set of three operations that underlie the hidden order of complexity. One is tagging (or naming)—classifying types of interactions within the system), which may be used as a sound practice for identifying a plethora of interactions: filtering, co-operation, competition, formation of aggregates, manipulation of symmetries, and selection. Tagging helps the observer discern between agents and agents to dissociate from other agents and is directly related to aggregation—the capacity to generalize into categories. The second mechanism are the internal models, a basic schema which allows for the anticipation and the prediction of system development. The last mechanism is reflected in the notion of building blocks—the basic constitutive units (the memes) of the internal models. In our case in point, what are the building blocks of translation studies? Are they translations as communicative acts as proposed by Luhmann, or the translator, as in the organicist system model proposed by scholars like Maturana? The adaptive systems theory does not seem to solve this conundrum just yet. Within a complexity paradigm, any social phenomenon, including translation, is caused by and causes a complexity of phenomena. Thus it is an emergent phenomenon, but also a lower-level one that, in its turn, leads to emergent higher-level manifestations, “a lower-level semiotic phenomenon in the emergence of other social phenomena.” (Marais 2014: 11) A complexity stance is a necessary step in accounting for “the wholeness and interrelatedness of reality.” (ibid.: 17) 71 Complexity theory, a form of systems theory, accounts both for things and for the relationships between things and “a philosophy of complexity holds a view of reality that is hierarchical, non- linear, paradoxical, nonequilibrium and that views systems as open.” (ibid.: 26) Hence it is not enough to examine each part that forms reality, but one also needs to see how these parts are connected, how they relate to each other, how they influence each other, and how they become— that is, how constituent parts form wholes. Applying all these to translation, we need to see how translators operate, how they relate to and influence other translators, how they get to operate as translators and, perhaps more importantly, how translation refashions in the light of such processes. Complexity shifts focus to processes rather than on phenomena, as complexity is a philosophical stance that keeps the whole and the parts, as well as the universal and the particular, in a continuous tension, and that does not attempt to reduce messiness to some neat principle or law, Marais explains quoting Latour (2005). Fourth, one may wonder: what do complex adaptive systems bring to the table that Niklas Luhmann’s systems do not? TS has emulated social sciences for quite some time now and it has been argued that translation is a sub-system of society (Hermans 1997, 1999, 2007; Vermeer 2006; Tyulenev 2009, 2011, 2014) and a system in itself: social reality consists of intersemiotic exchanges among human agents, therefore translation is an intersemiotic phenomenon that builds social realities. In this society, which has “no center and no overarching rationale and narrative,” (Hermans 2007: 118) translation is a sub-system which communicates with other systems “in terms of its interference and influence.” (Tyulenev 2011: 48) Luhmann’s social systems consists of communication events. In his theory, “systems [are] made up of decisions, and capable of completing the decisions that make them up, through the decisions that make them up.” (Luhmann 2003: 32). Furthermore, besides communication, Luhmann’s definition of social system is also based 72 on the concept of autopoiesis (Luhmann 1995: 408), or self-creation, which radicalizes otherness: his notion of “soft” complexity is articulated around the concept of “complexity of operations,” that is, the number of possible relations between the constituents of a certain system exceeds the number of actual relationships that will happen in the said system. This form of organization is essentially different from Chilean biologist Humberto Maturana’s organicist definition, according to which the participation of components and the relationships between components is instrumental for the unit (Maturana 1975: 315). Luhmann’s systems theory was not articulated around human beings, but only around their communication acts, so perhaps, I suggest, they are not a suitable paradigm to account for translators’ agency: Just imagine for a moment a social system that is, in actual fact, functioning autopoietically. (...) This would entail that every single process taking place within this system would necessarily be subservient to the maintenance of the autopoiesis of the whole. Consequently, the individuals (...) would vanish. They would have to subordinate themselves to the maintenance of autopoiesis. Their faith is of no further relevance. (...) This kind of negation of the individual is among the characteristics of totalitarian systems. (Maturana and Poerksen 2007: 72). Luhmann’s view of complexity is thus essentially reductionist, because the complexity of operations entails selection and because he does not seem to acknowledge the existence of systemic unpredictability. In explaining why Luhmann is (not) suitable in TS, Tyulenev (2009) notes that there are two kinds of complexity: incomprehensible complexity (arising from connecting everything with everything else) and determinately structured complexity, which means a “reduction of complexity [that] is inevitable in system formation.” (ibid.: 148) In Luhmann’s systems theory, systems are separated from the environment by a boundary, which means “applying a difference schema to an incomprehensible complexity.” (id.) The underpinning tenet of all this is that social systems are cohesive both in terms of interests and in terms of agents and that they are loyal to only one system. 73 Luhmann only acknowledges the differences that arise between systems (what makes one system different from another) and the difference between a system and the environment, but he does not fully address the problem of the differences arising between units in the same system—that is, the problem of heterogeneity. Luhmann’s difference is contained within the system and is a condition of the system’s self-referentiality and closure. Another shortcoming I would like to address in this research is Luhmann’s organized complexity as a result of autopoiesis and selection. For our purpose, this organized complexity simply rules out the existence of chaotic behaviours through autopoiesis, as well as the reality of translators that do not have the conscience of their agency. Also, the separation of the translation system from the environment in Luhmann’s theory fails to address clearly the issue of translator’s multiple dependencies (or loyalties), alongside the influence of the technoscape on the work of translators, to name only two of such shortcomings. In defining society, Tyulenev limits ‘the pillars of modern society’ to Gidden’s transformation (The French Revolution, the scientific revolution, and the industrial revolution), without alluding to the digital revolution of the 1990s and to the increasing prominence of this new type of cultural interaction ever since. Tyulenev’s essentially humanistic profile also has an impact on the series of quantitative and qualitative measures he proposes, which are all borrowed from sociology. Last but not least, he uses Luhmann in his own work to account for large-scale phenomena like the Westernization of Russia. A similar purpose is served in Seyed Mohammad Seyed Alavi’s Ph.D. dissertation (2015) at University of Ottawa, which employs SST to describe the role of translation in introducing modernity and Islam to Iran. In this latter example, Seyed Alavi has a different understanding of translation from Tyulenev. Unlike Tyulenev, who sees translation as a functionally differentiated system, he treats translation as “a communication medium that facilitates the interaction among social systems.” (2015: 10) 74 At this point I am wondering whether a general social system theory approach is suitable for researching translatorial action within a paradigm modeled by complexity and microspection. Tyulenev certainly believes so, but senses that system theory is not enough. In Translation and Society (2014) he stresses the importance of combining the structural-functionalist macro- sociological approaches13 and micro-sociological approaches (such as functionalism) for offering a complex view of the role of translation in society and of the agency of translators, around whom the whole book is built. I conjecture that this is very problematic. Sociologists have been struggling to find a suitable model to account for society’s diversity, and translation still follows in these sociologists’ footsteps, trying to solve a similar problem. Furthermore, given the nature of the present research, which focuses on a small slice of literary translation into Romanian, on a genre that is not considered socially influential, and on translators that run the whole gamut from being socially recognized for their work to translating only seldom and out of a whim, cannot find a proper ally in Luhmann. Working with contemporary literature translation means that the effects of translation become almost impossible to describe beyond bibliographical work. Therefore I need a more rhizomatic approach that promises to produce more punctual information on their actions and on their position within the corpus, which would eventually translate into more general conclusions. Therefore this research is modeled according to a bottom-up approach that feeds itself from incoming data on Romanian translations to form a perception of how agency pans out in this specific context, rather than model my research on a top-bottom approach which assumes unity a priori. 13 Luhmann’s and Bourdieu’s society as a harmonized organism, in which both individual and institutions are considered and individuals are seen in relation to the whole; or Durkheim’s society as an evolving organism; or the sociological theories of action. 75 We have briefly examined what systems are and how complexity could be a means towards a more nuanced translation theory. I agree with Kobus Marais that TS needs to look at translation as translation and not as something else. I recognize that the agent and the system should be considered in a constant, productive state of tension with repercussions on translation proper. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest at this point that analyzing a translation phenomenon from a complexity point of view by means of complex adaptive systems is too much of an unrealistic endeavour for a single scholar. It should be perhaps a life-time scholarly goal and certainly a collaborative enterprise. From a DH point of view, computationally analyzing and modelling such a system properly requires acknowledging the limits of one’s competencies and either work towards enriching one’s knowledge and technical skills or inviting specialists to join such a project. Still, before anyone engages in a hands-on project of such amplitude, analyzing translation starting from a smaller unit than the system may bring along multifarious benefits. 1.2.2. Actor-Network Theory Although I have closed the previous sub-section in a somewhat gloomy mood, I would like to open the present one on a much more optimistic note: complexity in TS is not an impossible goal—its success depends on where the quest for complexity starts and how it is represented. Before addressing the thorny problem of causal and functional complexity, I posit that the analysis should be first concerned with descriptive and constitutional complexity.14 It has been argued that complex systems may be modeled and analyzed by means of adaptive networks (Sayama et al. 2013) and 14 As I am interested in individual agents, I did not include the organizational complexity in this research. 76 that, in general, the formal language and the tools of network theory offer a more practical and user-friendly approach. Complex systems run the risk of being too big a hat to wear and someone in the complexity business may want to start from the bottom layers of a phenomenon, working their way slowly but surely to the top ones. Or start in one point and ramify, as the case may be. If complex systems may be regarded as networks of networks, then let us make the network the unit of our analysis and let us rather look, as Marais suggested, into the actor-network links—the level zero of any translation act. In order to better understand what a complexity paradigm may bring that is new, I need to briefly discuss the Actor-Network Theory, conceived as a means to analyze the processes underlying scientific and technological activities leading to innovations in and by society. Unlike sociologist Mark Granovetter’s diffusion model (1973), innovation in ANT is by and large treated as transformation (or translation), and not as the society’s response to a need, and situates itself in the lineage of the order-out-of-chaos philosophy. Combining agency (actor) and structure (network), ANT takes distance from any dichotomous understandings of society and focuses on the “irreducible, incommensurable, unconnected localities, which then, at a great price, sometimes end in provisionally commensurable connections.” (Latour 1997) The unit of analysis, the networks, are omnipresent and dynamic and are grounded in association as performance of shared interests. Also, they are concerned with making the unseen visible: I take the word network not simply to designate things in the world that have the shape of a net (in contrast, let’s say, to juxtaposed domains, to surfaces delineated by borders, to impenetrable volumes), but mainly to designate a mode of inquiry that learns to list, at the occasion of a trial, the unexpected beings necessary for any entity to exist. A network, in this second meaning of the word, is more like what you record through a Geiger counter that clicks every time a new element invisible before has been made visible to the inquirer. (Latour 2010: web). 77 Although Latour’s notion of ‘network’ points to a transformation, or a translation, it has not gained as much prominence in TS as social systems theory. Its intrinsic fragmentarity, localism, alongside its focus on the meaningful relationship between humans and technology were not the key to success for a discipline that was striving for unity and legitimacy. However, although Latour asks difficult questions that negate the existence of a principle of emergence or the existence of a macro-structure, such as—“What if the whole is less than its parts?”—his model is unique in that it acknowledges the voids that exist in any structure, it rejects any kind of aggregation, and sees power only in association: […] whenever an action is conceived as network, it has to pay the full prize of its extension, it’s composed mainly of voids, it can be interrupted, it is fully dependent on its material conditions, it cannot just expand everywhere for free (its universality is fully local). Networks are a great way to get rid of phantoms such as nature, society, or power, notions that before were able to expand mysteriously. (Latour 2010: web) Association is one of the main features of such a network, a type of connection, not a thing, whose specificity is to unite together, to associate, to do or to hold in common (Strum and Latour 1987: 793-5). As Pignuoli Ocampo explains, [t]he property of being in common consists of actants remaining unified to facilitate a program of action; their own strength and capacity to determine events is based on this. Action therefore is a program of action in common; it is never isolated. (2016: 138-139) However mutual agents’ interests, heterogeneity is still very much present: actants can be ‘winners’, but they may very well be ‘losers’ too: “neither the actor’s size nor its psychological make up nor the motivations behind its actions are predetermined;” (Callon 1997: 2) also, the network’s program of action is an associative unit whose distinctive feature is to perform an action together with other actants with which or with whom they are not initially connected. The non-deterministic, complex 78 nature of their approach is also present in in their description of what networks are: “[they] may have no compulsory paths, no strategically positioned nodes.” (Latour 1997) According to Latour (2005), who addresses the problem of transdisciplinary complex systems theory directly, reality is a complex unity that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. Systems are an ambiguous notion, I suggest, which sometimes eludes our attempts to pin it down. The ANT he proposes—and which he specifically describes as not being a sociological model—focuses on the heterogeneous network of interactions of human and non-human actors and on how these interactions depend on both the quality of the actors and the network context of interaction. Talking about how individual profiles have gained currency in recent years, Latour notes that “[i]ndividual action is much too distributed to be defined in terms of interaction” (2010: web) and that the notion of the “whole” has been refashioned: since a network has to accept the existence of multiple voids, it naturally follows that it cannot be necessarily greater than its parts. Latour even stretches the conclusion to the point to which a network is less than its individual parts, thus contradicting three common metaphors: society as overarching the individuals, the economic metaphor of the invisible hand, and society as an emerging structure. He blames the inadvertent depiction of society as aggregation on the negligent collection of data available: When we gather statistics […] the sheer difficulty of getting the data means that you are going to focus on the individual as little as possible in order to get as quickly as possible at the aggregates. Inevitably, you are going to begin to grant to those aggregates some sort of existence by themselves. (2010: web) Latour obviously alludes to the homogenous concepts of system or field. Marais extends ANT to translation as a social practice and notes that “a phenomenon such as the social cannot be thought of in terms of parts and wholes, but in terms of relationships between nodes.” (Marais 2014: 20) As far as ANT-informed research models in TS are concerned, two guiding principles emerge. 79 The first one requires following the actors that produce the object—in our case, the translation— and account for their actions by looking at the translation from the point of view of the translator. The second principle refers to treating all actors equally, irrespective of their wins or losses, which turns the theory egocentric rather than sociocentric and makes it impossible to combine with any other sociological approach in TS. It is precisely why, to my mind, researchers such as Hélène Buzelin (2005) have retained only the participant observation technique to complement Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. Much in the same way, to many TS researchers the social dimension of translation has been too obvious to allow themselves to take distance from traditional sociologically-informed approaches. Nevertheless, such approaches leave out important translation practices, such as re- translation, multilingual translation, or translational poetics. Let me take, for example, an essential fragment of Tyulenev’s argument that translation is a system: Translation treats all phenomena as either mediated or unmediated, translated or not; this is the basic binary systemic code of translation: what translation sees as unmediated, it mediates; what it sees as not mediated properly, it remediates (cf. retranslation) Translation also has flexible programmes reflecting changes in the mediation policies from culture to culture, from period to period and even from one translation agent to another translation agent. Retranslation or remediation are made exactly because programmes change over time and space. (Tyulenev 2014: 133, emphases mine) The binary systemic code of translation rules out the possibility of half-mediated texts and involuntarily ignores texts that sit on the boundary between the translation system and the literary one, be they rewritings or texts that can be subsumed to an author’s translational poetics. Also, the same boundary does not appropriately question an agent’s multiple loyalties, while in poetry translation, for instance, it is essential to do so, as the practice is not tributary to translation as a profession, but rather to translation as personal interest or ramification of an agent’s primary quality as author of literature. Furthermore, the changes that take place in the mediation policies 80 are a function of time, but they do not account for simultaneous retranslation within the same culture. Finally, although Luhmann’s systems are not concerned with the human being, in Tyulenev’s extensive definition translation as a system is, simply because in reality translation and agent cannot be divorced. In explaining agency—that is, how to get someone to do something—Latour (2005) addresses the question of boundaries in great depth. To him, boundaries do not exist because sociologists reflexively decided that they do and that they are located in a specific place, but because we constantly assign ourselves to a certain group: there is no group, but group formation and we are enrolled in such groups by our specific interventions or by others (2005: 25, original emphasis). According to Latour, the existence of boundaries should not be the primary object of sociology; rather sociology should be concerned with who traces them and with what sort of tools: To sum up, whereas for sociologists the first problems seems to settle on one privileged grouping, our most common experience, if we are faithful to it, tells us that there are many contradictory group formations, group enrollment—activity to which social scientists are obviously crucial contributors. The choice is thus clear: either we follow social theorists and begin our travel by setting up at the start which kind of group and level of analysis we will focus on or we follow actor’s own ways and begin our travels by the traces left behind by their activity of forming and dismantling groups. (2005: 29, emphasis mine) Unlike boundaries in general systems theory, which take the shape of operational closure and depend on the understanding of communications that are uttered, irrespective of their being accepted or rejected by the entities in that system, boundaries in ANT are built on the key-notions of acceptance and conflict. The associative unit, the network, although unified by association, is based on conflict (or controversy), as a network actants’ acting in common is grounded on the tension between program and anti-program. Action within networks may take place at a distance, which makes the unit of action take note of its own heterogeneity—it relocates and distributes (and 81 thus, translates) the action to various places that have each their own features, but share the same objective, or program. Thus the boundary is permeable, open to explorations, it is the expression of collectives’ needs to broaden their unity based on the tension between program and anti-program. Exploration is the way the collective moves through new associations. There are no pre-established associations, or groups. It is the way such associations are formed, the way groups are born, that matters. Therefore, if I am to follow a Latourian train of thought, I should not depart in my research from the assumption that poetry translators belong to a group and further base my conclusions on the description of that group, because “[…] there is no relevant group that can be said to make up social aggregates, no established component that can be used as an incontrovertible starting point.” (2005: 29) Latour proposes the Actor-Network, always with a hyphen, as a good compromise for the actor/system quandary (ibid.: 169). Instead of trying to decide on which side of the micro/macro debate we find ourselves, it acknowledges the impossibility to stay in one of the two sites for too long and advocates for the pluralism of the modes of existence—‘the pluriverses.’ In An Inquiry into Modes of Existence (2013) Latour rejects hidden social forces and ideology and embraces each individual’s awareness, which forms the grounds of his philosophy focused on the relational nature of existence. It is the individual’s awareness and actions that count—no matter how apparently insignificant—not the habit(us), as the habit means to function without the awareness of a background. According to Latour, we become aware only when something out of the ordinary happens in the background that impedes its smooth operation, therefore it is into the uncommon— or the controversial—that we need to delve. The common, the smoothly-functioning, the well-oiled 82 group ends up by going unnoticed, whereas the controversial will be always visible and the controversial is set to appear when a certain group starts taking shape: Group formations leave many more traces in their wake than already established connections, which, by definition, might remain mute and invisible. If a given ensemble simply lies there, then it is invisible and nothing can be said about it; if it is visible, then it is being performed and it will then generate new and interesting data. (2005: 31) Mapping the social context continuously engages the actors and forms anti-groups, which are needed in order to establish the boundaries, rather than have them set from the get-go: “group delineation is the very constant task of the actors themselves.” (ibid.: 32) Translators are not translators because we dub them as such, nor are they simple ‘informants’ that we deploy in a certain social context, but they are situated one reflexive loop ahead of us. In re-defining the social at a more general level, Latour argues that maps are essential because the existing ones “designate territories with such different shapes that they don’t even overlap!” (ibid.: 165) He also points out that these maps should overlap, as no one exists in one context and in one context only, and that they should be flat, not 3D, and certainly not vertical (hierarchical). To reassemble the social, the flattening of the maps should be followed by two operations: the relocation of the global (in order to elude permanent references to an overarching ‘context’ and to keep global and local actors side by side) and the redistribution of the local (in order to trace where the global was assembled, what the connectors are, and how the components have spread). The final and most important step is connecting the sites revealed through the first two operations. While zooming in on these maps, individual agency is so important to Latour that it becomes one of the three embodiments of culture: “A culture is simultaneously that which makes people act, a complete abstraction of an ethnographer’s gaze, and what is generated on the spot by the constant inventiveness of members’ interactions.” (ibid.: 168, emphasis mine) It is only by considering these 83 three aspects at once that one may have a veracious vista of translation within any given culture, because such a stance offers a substantial look into how translation comes into being. Before we define translation, we need to see why and how it was made. Before we analyze a translated text, we need to look at all associations around it. The rejection of pre-established social boundaries means that Latour proposes a sociology of association as an alternative to the traditional sociology of the social. According to Bourdieu, for instance, “[t]he relational mode of thinking [...] can only be applied to social realities at the cost of a radical rupture with the usual representation of the social world.” (1996: 181) To him, the relational mode of thinking, which is typical to sciences, “leads to privileging the different social realities, considered in themselves and for themselves, to the detriment of the objective relations, often invisible, which bind them, is never as powerful as when these realities – individuals, groups or institutions – entrench themselves with all the force of social sanction.” (id.) In Latour’s view, associations are not necessarily social and I need at least to acknowledge the possibility that translation may just very well be a fact of association in addition to being a social one by the effects it produces. Being a potential result of asocial associations—a hypothesis that intuitively looks very promising—begs the question of any social theory’s appropriateness in defining the grassroots of translation, as well as in identifying a suitable general framework for analyzing translators’ agency. Let us thus give a chance to the mongrel-concept of ‘network society’ before I turn to the promises of network science. 84 1.2.3. From Network Society (Back) to Network Science 1.2.3.1. Castells’ and Van Dijk’s ‘Network Societies’ The need to remap the social in general and various social phenomena in particular has been felt acutely by sociologists because of the constant changes in the way humans live and cohabitate. Such a remapping is so much the more needed in the age of technological innovations. The only system Latour endorses is the "sociotechnical’ one, but even that kind of system refers to the heterogeneity of technology, rather than to its unity. However, once it is functional not even technology forms a system because it tends to fade into the background,15 becoming embedded in the society. We may want to see translation in the same way, not as a Luhmannian organism operating independently within its surroundings, but as an open network that permeates our daily operations, especially in the light of the pervasive presence of technology. We shall see in this sub-section that networks have recently become concepts and models that are often used in many disciplines to reflect the readjustment of the contemporary world to the realities of the new technoscape. As Folaron and Buzelin aptly observe, While network approaches and trends in mathematics, physics and computer sciences, for example, might seek to focus on structures to explain, elucidate and model, the network concept counterparts in the social sciences must be assessed additionally in terms of their capacities to critique and, perhaps to act, transform and improve. (2007: 624) 15 In a talk at Rutgers University in 1996, titled “Computer Science for the Next 10 Years,” (Web: http://bit.ly/2p6vvfg, last accessed: March 13, 2018) Mark Weiser proposed “calm technology” and “ubiquitous computing” as two essential notions to define how we should experience the presence of technology. http://bit.ly/2p6vvfg 85 This commonsensical remark echoes Claus Emmeche’s distinction between ontological and descriptive complexity (2004). On the one hand, ontological complexity refers to the great number of non-identical components of a structure whose interaction produces a collective behavior that is different from the behavior of the individual components. Descriptive complexity, on the other hand, implies the use of multiple methods that are needed in order to describe a thing or phenomenon in a reasonably complex way. In other words and for the purpose of this research, I combine the use of computational methods needed for the identification of the nodes and edges of the network with descriptive perspectives and methods that are inherently subjective in order to be able to offer a complete image of translators’ agency. Two approaches will thus be of great help in assessing poetry translation networks: the first one refers to computationally analyzing and building graph visualisations of the proposed network in order to offer as clear as possible a view of the structure of the network, that is, how actors (translators and authors) relate to each other; the second approach will offer a critique of the network based on the notions of ‘network society,’ borrowed from the social sciences, while bearing in mind the Latourian tenet that associations may not necessarily be social (or have a ‘small world’ structure, as we shall shortly see). The network visualisations I am going to produce will arguably show whether poetry translation networks in Romania are social assemblages/associations or not. Should my conclusion pertain to the second scenario, there will be sufficient ground for advancing a reassessment of translators’ agency as network phenomena. As Folaron and Buzelin note in their overview dedicated to network studies, “the notion [of network] appeared as a way to move away from social determinism and to favour explanations based on the relations between entities rather than their substance. […] “Network” was used as a representation of small-scale relations, but also intuitively felt as potentially applicable to society at 86 large.” (Folaron and Buzelin 2007: 626) In sociology, a field favored by TS in its interdisciplinarity, the term ‘network society’ was coined as a result of the pervasiveness of digital information and communication technologies that have sparked significant changes in the way we experience social, cultural, and economic phenomena. Patterns of affiliation, production, and organization have changed radically and have called for a more relational, agent-based mode of analyzing society. A pioneer in proposing a fragmented model of society was Georg Simmel, who perceived culture as “the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history.” (cited in Levine 1971: xix) His propositions are still much referenced in social network analysis today. The main two advocates of the concept of “network society” are Jan van Dijk (1991) and Manuel Castells (1996). Van Dijk presents networks as the invisible nervous system of our society and dubs the 21st century as the age of networks, a natural evolution of the former mass society in a new informational context. The network society is […] a social formation with an infrastructure of social and media networks enabling its prime mode of organization at all levels (individual, group/organizational and societal). Increasingly, these networks link all units or parts of this formation (individuals, groups and organizations). (2006: 20) He also distinguishes between Western and Eastern societies, a dichotomy that allows him to acknowledge both the role of the individual and the role of groups (such as the family) in the formation and topology of these modes of organization. According to Van Dijk, the main components of the network society are heterogenous individuals (or focal groups), linked by networks of various natures, while the network-society’s substance is information. The scale of such a network can be both extended and reduced, and the scope can be both local and global. It is characterized by high connectivity and connectedness between components, and by lower density, centralization, and inclusiveness. The types of communities they establish are virtual and diverse 87 and communication within them is increasingly mediated, while their mode of organization is horizontally differentiated (non-hierarchical). Castells proposes an even more complex definition of network society, one that insists on the usefulness of the very logic and morphology of networks for present-day modes of organization. Unlike Van Dijk, who still sees individuals, groups, organizations and communities as the units of society, Castells assigns the role of basic unit to networks themselves: The network society, in the simplest terms, is a social structure based on networks operated by information and communication technologies based in microelectronics and digital computer networks that generate, process, and distribute information on the basis of the knowledge accumulated in the nodes of the networks. A network is a formal structure (Monge and Contractor 2004). It is a system of interconnected nodes. Nodes are, formally speaking, the points where the curve intersects itself. Networks are open structures that evolve by adding or removing nodes according to the changing requirements of the programs that assign performance goals to the networks. Naturally, these programs are decided socially from outside the network. But once they are inscripted in the logic of the network, the network will follow efficiently these instructions, adding, deleting, and reconfigurating, until a new program replaces or modifies the codes that command its operational system. (Castells 2006: 7) Network society does not equal information society, he rightfully argues, because society means more than technology. He recognizes the role of the cultural, economic and political in the life of any modern mode of organization and assigns essential roles to the spaces of flows, “the material organization of time-sharing social practices that work through flows.” (Castells 2004: 147) However, since he still places a great emphasis on the role of digital technology, the final part of his definition is very deterministic, cognizant of an external mechanism or program that directs the network. This cannot be reflective of human agency in its entirety, therefore, while still retaining the idea of the social organized by the logic of networks, I turn my attention to where everything began: network science and graph theory. 88 1.2.3.2. Network Science and Graph Theory Network science uses developments in graph theory to study and describe complex networks (Dorogovtsev et al. 2003; Newman 2010; Fortunato et al. 2011), such as the internet or various social networks, by means of a structure made of nodes (the actors) and links (the relationships or interactions between the actors). Unlike complex systems, which base their scholarship on models and equations, network theory feeds off real-time dense datasets and offers accessible, intuitive visualizations that are closer to real-life phenomena that happen in complex systems. Networks have the unique property of failing and recovering spontaneously (Majdandzic et al. 2013; Gao et al. 2011), thus offering the opportunity to examine various processes of formation and disaggregation in society and beyond: Thinking through the model of the network—nodes, ties, flows—certainly helps us to understand a great deal about, for example, the restructuring of capitalist enterprise and work, the disaggregation of state sovereignty, the rise and operation of new social movements, and emerging practices of community and identity formation. (Barney 2004: 179-180) When representing a social network as a graph, for instance, the nodes are the members of that network and the vertices (edges or links) may be a variety of relationships, from family lineage to common hobbies (e.g., at the most basic level a is related to b and c because they are siblings, but a is also related to d and e because they have a common hobby—say, they are avid snowboarders, thus a belongs in two networks; at the same time d is related to c and f because they share a passion for exotic food, therefore the three networks form a complex, non-linear one, or a network of networks). The features of such complex networks were best described in the following definition: Two main features seem to be shared by most complex networks, both natural and artificial. The first is their small world structure. […] The second is less obvious, but not less important: these webs are extremely heterogeneous: most elements are 89 connected to one or two other elements and only a handful of them have a very large number of links. These hubs are the key components of web complexity. They support high efficiency of network traversal but are for the same reason their Achilles heel. Their loss or failure has very negative consequences for system performance, sometimes even promoting a system’s collapse. (Solé et al. 2006: 3, emphases mine) The ‘small world’ structure is conditioned by the clustering coefficient: if there is a high degree of clustering and small average distance between nodes, then the network is a small-world structure. Based on Granovetter’s highly influential paper “The Strength of Weak Ties,” (1973) the small world model presents a structure of “highly connected clusters, or close-knit circles of friends, in which everybody knows everybody else. A few external links connecting these clusters keeps them from being isolated from the rest of the world.” (Barabási 2003: 42) According to this model, we can think of translator networks as complete graphs—“tiny clusters in which each node is connected to all other nodes within the cluster.” (id.) Simply put, translators’ world is one in which each translator is connected by several weak ties with translators and authors belonging in other networks. This model is essentially different from the previous random graph model proposed by Hungarian mathematicians Paul Erdős and Alfréd Rényi, according to which there would be no circle of friends, as “our links to other nodes are completely random.” (ibid.: 43) The clustering coefficient in a small world network is measured by dividing the number of actual links between nodes to the number of all possible links between the same nodes. The higher the coefficient (as close to 1 as possible), the more likely it is for a network to present a small world structure, one in which the nodes strive to establish the maximum number of links possible. However, translators do not form a network only among themselves; they also have distant ties with the outside world. The nodes they link to in the outside world are the authors they translate, authors that belong to a different culture. If we consider translators in relationship only to their peers or only to the authors they translate, then we may consider the respective network as a simple one, while if we consider them in relationship both 90 with their peers and in relationship with the authors of the works they translate, we are going to find ourselves in the business of complex networks. Granovetter’s model was formalized by Duncan J. Watts and Steven H. Strogatz , who showed that, even by adding a few distant links, a large-scale random network will present small- world features, as that will decrease considerably the average distance between nodes (the number of edges in a shortest path connecting them, also called a graph geodesic). For instance, the network that emanates from Bob Dylan’s work: although thousands of miles apart16 and potentially not standing many chances to ever belong in the same circles, translators pertaining to various cultures and having various primary occupations will find themselves in a small world network through the distant links that connect them to Dylan’s lyrics. However, the criticism brought to the models proposed by Erdős and Rényi and later by Watts and Strogatz is related to their intrinsic egalitarian value, which does not acknowledge the existence of hubs or connectors, that is, nodes with more links than any other nodes in the network. These critics of small world networks propose a scale- free model, which has a power-law degree distribution of the number of links connecting to a node (Barabási and Albert 1999, Barabási 2003, etc.). Not only does this scale-free structure have a large number of vertices with a high degree, but their number greatly exceeds the number of average ones, which gives the network robustness and makes it more resistant to failures. Even in case of multiple failures, connectedness is not affected, as it is maintained by the large hubs. As the node degree increases, the clustering coefficient distribution decreases. Such networks are characterized by two power-generating features. The first one is their preferential attachment, in the sense that rich networks tend to get richer—an edge tends to attach to an already heavily linked node (a 16 The use of real-life distance here is simply explanatory and does not equal the graph distance mentioned before. 91 connector) rather than to a poorly linked one. The second feature, described by Guido Caldarelli et al. (2002), is the fitness model which describes why fitter nodes attract more links than the less fit ones. This feature can be used to anticipate the evolution of a network, based on the idea of competition between nodes that may affect the whole structure. Following the model of the Internet or of the scientific publication network, on which the proponents of this model based their argument, various social networks have been reported as being scale-free, animated by a power differential. Nevertheless, more recent research has contradicted these claims and shown that the power distribution was not present in networks where it was thought to exist (Clauset et al. 2009). For example, Clauset et al. have shown statistically that the network of “adherents of religious denominations, bodies, and sects”, or “the numbers of copies of bestselling books sold in the United States during the period 1895 to 1965” (2009: 683) have been misclassified as power-distributed. At this point we should ask ourselves whether literary translator networks are small-world networks or scale-free ones, as their configuration questions the topic of power and ideology. Although Latour has explicitly distanced himself from Albert-László Barabási’s Linked (2003), by emphasizing that his concept of network “is a purely conceptual term that means that whenever you wish to define an entity (an agent, an actant, an actor) you have to deploy its attributes, that is, its network,” (2010: web) actually deploying, analyzing, and modelling these networks does depend on a number of features proposed by Barabási, such as his preferential attachment, which proved to be a salient concept in economics or in the design of the internet. 92 1.2.4. Chaos in Translation Networks As this dissertation does not aim for a translation studies paradigm change, but intends to account for the complexity of translator agency within a certain non-hegemonic context in hopes of producing a model that may be successfully deployed in other contexts, I would like to propose to break down the translation system in smaller units, the networks. When reassembling the units, we will not necessarily have a unified system, but a larger network, which will allow for the analysis of translations done in a certain culture through the lens of the relationships they generated with a foreign one. These relationships will not be solely unidirectional, as the feedback loop of translation may generate a similar feedback loop in the other culture, as we will see in the chapter dedicated to transnationalism, through the concept of “literary barters.” Therefore what I propose in this research does not entail a network model N that should eventually work for all agencies in all systems (or larger networks), but a network model N0 that will result in network models N1 to N100 when deployed in various contexts. Thus translators’ agency will be the ensemble of all the phenomena that appear in those diverse circumstances. Can we argue at this point that applying a systems paradigm in studying agency is opportune? Although complex adaptive systems present a very tempting solution, I believe it should not be adopted from the very beginning. One of the main reasons why I think it would be wise to avoid such a paradigm is data aggregation, which confers the much needed stability to a system. Before striving for stability, I conjecture that looking into instability is essential. A system may even be less than the sum of its parts, as Latour suggested, because an actor’s agency may be so insignificant that it will eventually dissipate. But in order to determine the insignificance of a certain agency, one needs to look into it first and data aggregation (leaving out what is not important and 93 treat the rest as similar) impedes on such an important first step. Furthermore, a network may be asocial while a system has an intrinsic socialness, an in-built cooperation between its elements. It is only after the analysis of all possible translation networks within a culture that I believe it is possible to assemble and analyze translation as a (complex) system within a given culture and in relation to the network it establishes with other cultures. Until then, I propose to fashion this research on a network model and think in terms of a paradigm that acknowledges chaos. A paradigm that acknowledges chaos is best shaped around a progenerative model—“concerned with current sets and fields of relationships for persons in a given lifeworld.” (Cronin 2013: 422) Citing Tim Ingold, Cronin favors this model for its focus on “an entire field of relationships within which different beings emerge with their particular forms, capacities, and dispositions.” (Ingold 2000: 142) While Cronin does not specifically acknowledge the role of chaos, I would like to treat it as an auspicious point of departure in the analysis of any translatorial action. The relevance of the chaos paradigm for TS has to find a middle ground between the dangers of yet another metaphor, translation as chaos, and the appeal of hard sciences. Generally thought of as providing valuable methodological insights for explaining human behavior (Kellert 1995), chaos theory has been informing social sciences since the 1960s, as it presents the right premises for a sociology of non-static, translating connections. Also known as the science of surprises, of the unpredictable, chaos theory stipulates that even the slightest change in the initial conditions may lead to unpredictable, non-linear results. Marais rightfully applies it to translation and concludes: “[…] in open systems, with the slightest difference in initial conditions, one cannot predict the outcomes: that is, one could not have identical translation.” (2014: 10) The main features of chaotic systems are non-linearity, complex forms, and feedback mechanisms that create loops in which output feeds back into the system as input. This boomerang effect is the very definition of any 94 translation, which departs the network of origin as an agent’s intent and returns to the same network as translation. The contribution of chaos to the globalizing theories that have dominated the study of translation for decades may be crucial. To echo Latour’s We Have Never Been Modern17 (1993), I dare suggest TS has never really been postmodern18 in defining itself and ostensibly preserving a genealogical model at the core of its definitions, a model concerned with past histories and relationships. Kobus Marais’ is the first attempt to look for explanations in disorder rather than in order. Translation theory has not been really taken with the idea of deconstruction, with poststructuralism, and hasn’t really adapted its theories to the new technologies and the social changes produced by information (again, with the notable exceptions of Cronin and Marais). As Nicole K. Hayles argued in Chaos Bound in 1990, “[the] paradigm of orderly disorder may well prove to be as important for the second half of the century as the field concept proved for the first half.” (1990: xiii) The interwar period marked a shift from a focus on the dissipative energy within chaos to an ambiguity with order. That led to another shift, this time in the humanities, in the 1960s and the 1970s, towards a more local and fragmented mode of analysis of their objects of study. Concomitantly, boundaries were admitted as arbitrary constructs and highly permeable membranes, very sensitive to historical, linguistic, and cultural variables. This shift was corroborated with an increasing attention dedicated to stochastic variables in the cultural field, to random fluctuations in complex systems, and generally with an awareness that chaos plays an important role in the life of such systems. This new realization led scholars to perceive chaos as presence, 17 In We Have Never Been Modern (Catherine Porter, Trans. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1993), Latour argues that modernity has always promoted the human vs. nature dualism and has not allowed for the proliferation of hybrids, which now characterize all contemporary matters, from global warming to biotechnology. 18 Even in postcolonialism ‘difference’ is construed as ‘diversity,’ which “supposes that different groups are possessed of different sets of ready-made attributes.” (Cronin 2014: 423) 95 rather than absence: that is, rich in information rather than poor in order. As we will see in the following subchapter, a chaotic network like poetry translation into Romanian is positively animated by a poetics of fecundity and is indeed in total disarray in terms of order. One may very well argue that many translations are not necessarily good translations; however, as Hayles aptly notes, “implicit in the transevaluation of chaos is the assumption that the production of information is good in itself, independent of what it means.” (1990: 6) Within chaos theory there are two lines of thought. The first one sees chaos as preceding and then accompanying order and is present in Ilya Prigogine’s work on dissipative systems and in the idea of spontaneous emergence of self-organized systems from chaos. More of a philosophical endeavor than a practical one because of the lack of consistent results, its interest lies in its potential to reconcile being and becoming by the focus it places on the arrow of time. The second sees a hidden order in any chaotic system and entertains the idea that there are certain deeply encoded structures called “strange attractors.” This line of thought is praised for its results, but it is poor in philosophy and lacks consistent theory. Its main strength resides in seeing chaos as able to generate new information. No matter the focus, chaos theory has marked a very attractive paradigm shift in literary criticism, one that allowed critics, as Hayles astutely notes, to unveil “ideological underpinnings of the traditional idea of order.” (1990: 23). It is my hope that chaos helps TS take a bit of distance from the strong ideologies that have informed the field for decades, at least as far as contemporary literary translation is concerned. Just as Hayles’ creative writers carry along more cultural substrata than professional writers—”writing is turbulence or, at least, it brings turbulence into being” (1990: 24)—the same may be valid for literary translators. Literary translation implies a high degree of transformation and creativity and a literary text will not be the same in the host culture. Chaos does mean newness, but in a chaotic network both creative translation and 96 translation as simply carrying across meaning will find the right environment to co-exist. They co- exist at the edge of chaos. Although writers are considered creators who write out of ‘nothing’ (i.e., chaos), the comparison with translators is not far-fetched. If we consider translation as filling a gap in a culture rather than an import of value, translators become creators especially in case of self-reliant agency. The translator’s agency may follow the pattern of gaps in a given culture, but it also depends on the said translator’s own status and psyche, which affect their choices. In a paradigm dominated by chaos translators’ agency will need to be redefined, since it cannot simply and solely be amenable to some pre-established conditions in the host culture, professional regulations, or occupational prestige. Typical agency, consisting of multiple elements, such as “the generation of intent, identification of contextual salience, recall of relevant memories, evaluation of choice options and their anticipated consequences, decision making, planning, implementing the action, and real-time monitoring and adjustment of the implementation,” (Klemm 2015: 51) also needs to take stock of self-organization, which implies nonlinearity, far-from-equilibrium conditions, redundancy, reliability, systemic correlation, social system noise, and system containment (Goldstein 1995). Chaotic behaviors are present at the level of networks as well, where weak chaos is constructed mathematically and even desirable, so that we understand why a certain network exists at the edge of chaos (Sprott 2008). Besides having the power to cause events, translators as agents have the power of self-direction (Smith 2015: 3). As Folaron and Buzelin correctly note, complex networks “are also the resulting organizational dynamics that emerge in the interplay of community goals, such as the self-organization and hierarchy” (2007: 630) in various situations, to which I would add, in the case of literary translators, that they are the consequence of individuals’ self-fulfilling prophecies. The self-fulfilling prophecy, itself a manifestation of non-linearity (Goldstein 1995), is a 97 prediction that, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, causes itself to become true. New thinking on the topic equates the self-fulfilling prophecy with the law of attraction, the belief that ‘like attracts the like.’ As will become apparent in the following sections, most poetry translators are not translators by profession and they do not see translation as an occupation. They rather consider themselves (and many are indeed) writers besides having a completely different paying job, and they translate from a genuine interest in a foreign author’s work. This genuine interest cannot be completely separated from a self-identification with the author of the original work. “I would love to be able to write like that,”19 thinks the poet while translating the poems into her mother-tongue. Poetry translation can thus be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy of their translators and equated to individual agency—it triggers a line of events which otherwise would not have taken place, as such translations are not usually commissioned. In terms of self-organization and hierarchy, poetry translation functions as an appropriative mode of poetic innovation: […] translating poetry, just like composing poetry, has been celebrated as a kind of writing that allows the translator to find his or her language through that of another (“it spoke the same idiom that I was looking for in my contemporaries in my own language” [Aulicino 1988, 27]). Praising and preserving elements of the other is, ultimately, a way of defining oneself. (Galvin 2014: 372, emphasis mine) In the case presented here, what cannot be found in local contemporary authors is sought “in the company of strangers.” (Cronin 2014: 418) The description of this phenomenon cannot be primarily based on economic factors, but needs to consider self-organization first20. 19 It is necessary to note at this point that I do not have a positivist attitute towards copyright—as it becomes evident in Chapter 2—nor do I entertain the author’s hegemony in relation to translation. For the purpose of this research, the way I see the relationship between translation and the original echoes the mathematical operation of translation, in which the original is a pre-image, and the translation is considered to be the image. What may appear as the author’s hegemony in relation to their translators is simply a manifestation of literary kinship. 20 In On Interobjectivity Latour gives the example of J.P. Dupuy’s Introduction aux sciences sociales. Logique des phénomènes collectifs (Paris: Editions Marketing, 1992) in note 12 for a classical use of the biological self-organization metaphor instead of economics. 98 The cultural personae of some translators or even the make-up of (a) certain translator network(s) may be considered similar to ‘chaotic attractors.’21 In dynamic systems the attractors are a series of numbers towards which the system evolves. Possessing an essentially connectionist mind, translators interact perpetually with their environment, a process which results in chaotic22 processes, one of whose primary functions is to learn different patterns. Translation emerges from this semiotic interaction between translators and their environments, both the proximate and the distant ones, and the turbulences they produce in the spaces they inhabit or even connect to give birth to a butterfly effect that may not be visible to their contemporaries, but will perhaps give birth to meaningful mutations in not such a distant future. To make sure this kind of evolution is properly accounted for, I suggest that our discipline should take stock of difference and localize the global by refashioning its theory in such a way that it incorporates non-linearity. Fostering non-linearity in translation invites for a redefinition of translation that may be worded as follows: (poetry) translation is a complex phenomenon carried out by translators who interact together and/or relate with each other at the smallest scale to organize themselves, voluntarily or involuntarily, into associations/structures at larger scales. These associations/structures might lack central authorities/leaders and are responsible for the appearance of translation and other related phenomena that could be neither predicted nor deduced from fully knowing its constituents in isolation or from making the sum of such experiences. The smallest variation in the initial conditions of translation production may lead to totally different outcomes in terms of rendition and types of agency. The following chapters are a demonstration in support of the key summative arguments of my theoretical stance. 21 According to the theory of chaos, both individuals/objects and clusters of individuals/objects may act as attractors. 22 By ‘chaotic’ I understand processes in which order co-exists with disorder, and not ‘randomness.’ 99 CHAPTER 2. TRANSLATOR AND AUTHOR NETWORKS IN PERIODICALS (2007-2017) 2.1. Micro-Charting Poetry Translation Networks in Romanian Print Literary Journals Dispirited by statements like “Unfortunately, modern and contemporary American poetry was little translated; practically, the overviews and anthologies published in Romania after World War II can be counted on one hand,” (Chivu 2014: web) one may fail to account for the richness of periodical publications that include poetry translations in many of their issues. If it were not for these publications, how would recent comments like “[…] almost all my favorite discourses in Romanian poetry since the 1980s are each attached to an important American poet or to one influential U.S. poetry school after the Second World War” (Komartin 2011: web) ever be made? It is hard to believe that the few translated books23 published over more than seventy years have influenced an entire literature or that American poets have influenced their Romanian peers without any kind of mediation via translation. If we look from very high above at the Romanian book market, we will see merely a speck on the global book stage.24 If we hope to spot the portion dedicated to poetry volumes, the speck will disappear altogether. But if we zoom in, the number of translated poetry books and anthologies will remain the same, while a whole web of translators, authors, and literary journals that do not depend on the precarious book market will reveal itself to us. This is the ‘small world’ I hope to address in this subchapter, because however financially insignificant it is, its size 23 In chapter 3 and section 4.2 I show that it was the very interest of these poets and poet-translators in the American and Canadian poetries that led to most publishing initiatives and that less than half of the total number of titles have been published under mainstream auspices since 1945. 24 According to the 2016 statistics published by the Federation of European Publishers, the total market value was estimated at 36-38 billion €. The total number of books published the same year was 590,000 titles. In Romania, the total book market has an estimated value of 60 million € (0.15%) (Chivu, Dilema veche 630/2016: web. http://bit.ly/2Cx12e4. Last accessed: February 19, 2018). http://bit.ly/2Cx12e4 100 and mode of operation offer unparalleled insight into how poetry translators work and how they connect to all the other nodes in the network—in this case to other translators and to the authors they translate. In micro-modernity, one of the ways we look at the world shifts from looking at the local from a global perspective to looking at the global from a more proximate vantage point (Cronin 2013b). The other way is to examine how the object of this research refashions itself in the boundless digital world, as will be seen in subchapter 2.3. This new perspective that originates in our immediate proximity has the advantage of opening up the world around us, of expanding it, rather than compressing it. In Cronin’s words (2012), microspection is a way of positively reconfiguring the possibilities of the local, of re-enchanting a world formerly disheartened by globalization, of pursuing an endotic travel. At the same time, it seeks to avoid the dichotomy between the global and the local by emphasizing larger webs of connectivity and by going beyond the much invoked ‘sense of place’ that informs the literature on ‘default communities’, that is, nations (cf. Appadurai). To the defamiliarization brought about by globalization Cronin opposes a zooming-in process, or a process of endotic travel, which ultimately means getting acquainted with and understanding the world around us in its complexity, as the politics of microspection is essentially concerned with the unseen. Analytical microspection—“the proper investigation of places and their inhabitants through methods and practices which reveal the full, fractal complexity of human habitation” (2012: 65)— is, I suggest, an essential practice that allows me to bring out into the open the intricacies of poetry translation in Romania. Fundamentally unseen on the translated book market, where “competition is acerbic and almost everything boils down to money,” (Stănescu 2017: web) contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translation lives, for the most part, in the labyrinthine confines of periodical 101 publications. In the case of a small literature like the one I refer to, the models that define translated poetry exchanges appear to be grounded in the logic of periodical publishing rather than in the mechanisms of local book markets. Literary magazines play in this respect a triple role: first, they are a presentation and promotion platform used by translators for avant-premières or simply to present selections that may or may not end up being published in book form; second, they play an evaluation role, as they host reviews of translated books or essays on the works of the authors translated; and finally, they play an essential role in networking, acting as a link between translators, authors, publishers, and the readers. Besides the salient role they have in the cultural life of any space (be it local, regional or national; be it online or offline), they are often much more accessible a publication site than the mainstream or even indie book publishing industry, since production costs are significantly lower and competition is less intense. Furthermore, to quote a celebrated American translator, “[e]very good literary magazine worth its salt publishes translations,” (Bernofsky 2014: web) which means that, no matter how overlooked by scholarly literature in TS,25 literary journals are a fundamental player on any literary scene and they need to be acknowledged in any overview of literary translations that is worth its salt. 2.1.1. Endotic Travels into Contemporary Poetry Translation in Print Periodicals In a Ph.D. dissertation on the dialogue between French and American poetries since 1970, Matthew Bingham Smith (2015) discusses the convoluted web of poets that contributed decisively, through their own networks of friends, trips abroad, and poetry readings, to establishing a whole 25 A first issue dedicated to this topic, “Translation and/in periodicals” (guest-edited by Maria Constanza Guzmán) will be hosted by Translation and Interpreting Studies journal in summer 2019 (Web: http://bit.ly/2JAkjiQ). 102 set of practices at the institutional level. The work poets began was picked up and furthered by more formal modes of organization, such as national literary magazines or presses with national distribution, thus embedding translations of such poetries, for example, into a more centralized network of circulation. Although poets (and poet-translators) have maintained their salient role in imagining and creating competing audiences through poetry readings and have been largely influencing writing practices, the mediation of the exchange between the two cultures has become more institutionalized over time. Unlike in France, to whose practices Romania might appear as tributary, the exchanges with the American or Canadian cultures have never become institutional, with the notable exception of the U.S. Department of State-run financing programs in place at the U.S. embassy in Bucharest. However, the financial support they offer is mainly for projects that result in a book being published, hence their role is not relevant for the present subchapter. The work translators have been doing on such translations in periodicals has remained their own project and has not joined a centralized distribution network, but stayed rather local, according to the audience of the respective journal and to the translators’ network. Nevertheless, their agency is of the utmost importance for the presence of these poetries in Romania. For example, in the case of Allen Ginsberg: compared to France, a book market forty-six times larger than Romania, where he was translated twenty-three times in anthologies and twenty-seven times in periodicals between 1960 and 1994 (Morgan 1996), in Romania he was translated only six times in anthologies, never in a volume,26 but almost equally in periodicals: twenty-seven times between 1965 and 1993 (ibid.). Daily and periodical publishing in Romania has always been a very fertile ground—in 1972, a year of highly effective censorship and thorough control by the communist party, there were 745 26 Before the only translation ever published in a stand-alone collection by Polirom in 2010. 103 such publications (Șercan 2016), while in 2016 the total number was 3,33927 (excluding daily newspapers). The National Library of Romanian inventoried 20 cultural journals in May 2011, for example, but the number is thought to be much higher, anywhere around 120, with an average of three cultural periodical publications per county (Dorian 2011: web), which makes Romania “the country with most literary journals” (id.) in Europe. The discrepancy between official statistics and estimations is caused by the unregulated operation of many such publications, which do not comply with the National Library’s legal deposit requirement, as well as by the appearance of various e- zines that are not yet listed by this institution. Despite conflicting estimations, there is general consensus on the importance played by cultural journals in the history of the country: from a prime venue of literary and political effervescence that fueled the emergence of the country’s historical parties and interbellum modernity to a coalition against a totalitarian regime and its protochronist28 ideology during communism (Vulpescu 2014), literary journals and journalism in general have been a driving force behind the country’s progress throughout its history. At the same time, it is no less true that the lack of interest shown by the state in financing these publications after the 1989 revolution and the continuous financial struggles they have been experiencing for the past twenty- eight years has resulted in a fluctuating number and in only some of them receiving steady financial support from the Ministry of Culture via the Writers’ Union, while others have been relying on funding from local administration. While there are no official statistics in this respect, an analysis of all articles published in any given month inventoried by the National Library shows an interesting breakdown: between January 27 According to the Romanian National Institute of Statistics. 28 Anglicised term from the Romanian protocronism—the tendency to attribute an idealised past to the whole country with questionable data and subjective, speculative interpretations—a very popular communist ideology. 104 and March 2016, for instance, there were a total of 1,585 articles published in 31 legally deposited journals, out of which 1,090 entries were dedicated to literature. Of these, 111 (roughly 10%) involved literary translations and 61 were poetry translations specifically. If one compares the latter with the general interest shown to poetry (368 entries, excluding translations), it can be safely assumed that poetry in general stands its ground in literary journals compared to other literary forms. By extension, poetry translation is much more frequent than any other type. In light of all these data, the objective of this subchapter is twofold. First, I aim at quantifying the amount of contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translated in Romanian literary journals between 2007 and 2017 by examining a built corpus. I first analyze the corpus using a functionalist approach, by dividing translators into categories according to the social actions they fulfill in conjunction with the action of poetry translating. From this perspective, it is very likely we shall notice that translation is often a function of academia and poetry authorship. However, such a perspective is not entirely useful, as it offers only a partial overview of any phenomenon by “minimis[ing] the role of agency, willful and intended human ability.” (Tyulenev 2014: 123) Second, once the explanatory potential will have been reached (Marais 2014: 31) and we will have arrived at “quirks and the like,” (id.) it will be important to see how the parts relate to each other. Thus, I set out to analyze computationally the network of translators that carried out these translations, with a view to identifying not only the connectors—agents who translated a large number of American and Canadian authors for more than one periodical—, but also any sporadic contribution that might have occurred and if and how all these are in any way interrelated. In doing so, I shall depart from the common assumption in complex systems theory that “agents act locally, with no view of contributing to the whole.” (Marais ibid.) 105 2.1.2. Functionalist Description of the Corpus “[T]he era in which we could assume that viable public spheres were typically, exclusively, or necessarily national could be at an end,” (1996: 20) predicted Arjun Appadurai more than two decades ago. This conjecture rings especially true in the case of contemporary poetry, which is not considered, by any stretch of the imagination, as socially influential. Many locally-based literary magazines present quality literary content and are considered champions of literary patronage, although they do not specifically address a national readership, but rather present cultural products originating in more local contexts. Typically published monthly and financed either by the Writers’ Union or by the local administration of each county in Romania, these journals cannot depend on the low advertising revenues or revenues from subscriptions, and are generally fed content by authors’ or translators’ demand: journals need content in order to exist, and authors need a publication venue. The main component of my corpus is the bibliography of articles in Romanian cultural periodicals published between June 2007 and December 2015,29 to which I added translations features in various other journals up to December 2017. Building the corpus has required a sizeable amount of manual work, as all bibliographies compiled at the NLR are presented as .pdf files, a format which is not supported by any text analysis software. The huge datasets documenting periodical publishing between 2007 and 2015 had to be browsed file by file and entries pertaining to poetry translation from U.S. and Canadian poetries copy-pasted in a text file (.txt). I could not trust entirely the metadata behind the indexing either, as I soon discovered, for example, that 29 The archive is available at http://www.bibnat.ro/Arhiva-s237-ro.htm#6. http://www.bibnat.ro/Arhiva-s237-ro.htm#6 106 authors were simply missing from the final index or that American authors were filed under British authors; therefore the search was extended to all Anglophone literatures presented in these bibliographies. I have also added selections that were published in Orizont literar contemporan—since it is a literary journal that has translation at the heart of its mission, alongside Poesis International—one of “the best independent Romanian literary journals,” (Chivu 2015) which is not indexed by the National Library of Romania, but which has been publishing a significant number of important American contemporary poets since its inception in 2010. The corpus is partly listed in Annex 1 and also in this section’s footnotes: the only entries not listed here are the ones I included in the subchapter dedicated to transnationalism. However, the visual representation contains all these poetry selections. According to the bibliography compiled by the NLR, T. S. Eliot is the most translated poet in the corpus, with various renditions by Șerban Foarță,30 Șerban Foarță and Adriana Carmen Racoviță,31 Ștefan Augustin Doinaș,32 Șerban D. Ionescu,33 Laura Sandu,34 Aprilia Zank,35 Elena Ciobanu,36 and Florin Dochia.37 There are also two unattributed translations in Argeș literary 30 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Lune de miel; Dans le restaurant.” (Şerban Foarţă, Trans.) In Acolada 9: 8. 31 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2008. “Miercurea cenuşii.” (A. C. Racoviţă and Ş. Foarţă, Trans.) In România literară 36: 28-29. 32 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Animula.” (Ştefan Augustin Doinaş, Trans.) In 13 Plus 1-3: 60. 33 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Tărâmul pustiirii, 1922: O nouă traducere din T.S. Eliot.” (Şerban D. Ionescu, Trans.) In România literară 42: 28-29. 34 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Vântul porni la ora patru; Exerciţii pentru cinci degete; Versuri pentru un bătrân.” (Laura Sandu, Trans.) In Idei în dialog, March (cf. Bîrsanu 2014). 35 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2010. “Cîntecul de dragoste al lui J. Alfred Prufrock.” (Aprilia Zank, Trans.) In România literară 49-50: 29. 36 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. “Cântecul de dragoste al lui J. Alfred Prufrock.” (Elena Ciobanu, Trans.) In Ateneu 4: 24. 37 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2014. “Rânduri pentru o pisică persană; Rânduri pentru un cățeluș.” (Florin Dochia, Trans.) In Cafeneaua literară 5: 31. 107 journal38 in 2009. As we shall see in Chapter 4, Foarță and Racoviță also translated Eliot’s Selected Poems, so publishing excerpts of this volume prior to the volume’s publication appears as only natural. Since the selections by Foarță and Foarță and Racoviță were published in 2008 and 2009, respectively, well before the publication of the dedicated volume by Humanitas in 2011, this chronology could be indicative of the translators’ salience in proposing a translation project even in the case of major players on the publishing market, such as Humanitas. The translation attributed to Doinaș is in fact a re-publication of an old translation by Ion Pillat39 published in 1933; Doinaș has never translated “Animula,” but only co-translated “Marina” together with Virgil Nemoianu and “Cântecul de dragoste al lui J. Alfred Prufrock” (The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock) and “Preludii” (Preludes) together with Toma Pavel in a one-time selection in 1965.40 The Romanian version of “The Waste Land” by Ș. Ionescu (2008) is unattributed in the online version41 of the journal, but likely signed by Ionescu in the print version.42 The two unattributed translations remain a mystery: although they appear in the “Traduceri aminte” (Translations to remember) section of the journal, none of the titles are listed in the most comprehensive study on the Romanian translations of Eliot to date (Bîrsanu 2014). Finally, the translations done by L. Sandu, A. Zank, E. Ciobanu, and F. Dochia are one-time occurrences and cannot be associated with a certain translation program focused on bringing the vastness of Eliot’s work into Romanian culture. They are occasional translations by 38 Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Devreme, la fereastră.” (Unattributed translation) In Argeş 11-12: 3. Web: http://bit.ly/2ng1LLP. Last accessed: January 27, 2018; Eliot, Thomas Stearns. 2009. “Mătușa Helen.” (Unattributed translation) In Argeș 1: web. http://bit.ly/2Ee9pxE. Last accessed: January 27, 2018. 39 Pillat, Ion. 1933. “Animula; Marina.” In Azi 2 (cf. Bîrsanu 2014). 40 In Secolul XX 1. 41 The online edition of România literară can be accessed at http://www.romlit.ro/. Direct links to specific articles do not work, hence one needs to refer to the archived summary first: http://bit.ly/2GQRp08, and then access the specific entry. Last accessed: April 03, 2018. 42 The NLR bibliography wrongly lists issue 36/2009 as the publication place. The correct issue is 29/2009. http://bit.ly/2ng1LLP http://bit.ly/2Ee9pxE http://www.romlit.ro/trmul_pustiirii_1922 http://bit.ly/2GQRp08 108 poets or professors who admire his work and make their admiration manifest through the act of translation. The corpus also reveals the most interesting fact about România literară, the flagship journal of the Writers’ Union: the three translations of T.S. Eliot’s poetry are the only translations of contemporary poetry published here between 2007 and 2015. Outside this timeframe I was able to locate only one selection of Leonard Cohen’s poetry43 translated by Mircea Cărtărescu in 2003. Two conclusions can be drawn. First, literary translation is not among the key areas the journal focuses on, although they do publish translation criticism articles. Even Grete Tartler, the translator in charge of the “Meridiane” section of the magazine, has published her translations of Louise Glück44 or Theodore Roethke45 elsewhere. Second, when it does publish translations, texts have to belong to poets widely accepted by the canon (hence the lack of any paratextual notes, such as author’s bio or the translator’s note and bio): although Glück and Roethke are canonical American writers, in Romania they are mostly known by poetry specialists and not by the public at large. Translation criticism in that journal needs to follow the same established criteria of recognition and domination—the few reviews related to translation in my contemporary American and Canadian poetry corpus are of translations of translators widely known in Romania: L. Cohen (Urian 2006), e. e. cummings (Sandu 2012), T.S. Eliot (Dima 2012), Bob Dylan (Tartler 2012), and John Berryman (Coande 2014). Among the very few journals that published thematic series of translations is Steaua. The series titled Poete americane de top46 (Top American Women Poets) ran from 2014 to 2015 and was 43 Cohen, Leonard. 2003. “Viitorul; Toată lumea știe; Ora închiderii.” (Mircea Cărtărescu, Trans.) In România literară 28: web. http://bit.ly/2EdsFcV. Last accessed: April 03, 2018. 44 Glück, Louise. 2007. “Macul roşu.” (Grete Tartler, Trans.) In Luceafărul 11: 19. 45 Roethke, Theodore. 2007. “Întoarcerea.” (Grete Tartler, Trans.) In Luceafărul 30-31: 39. 46 See Annex 1 for the bibliographic references. http://bit.ly/2EdsFcV 109 likely conceived by the editorial board of the journal, led by widely known feminist poet Ruxandra Cesereanu, its Editor-in-Chief. The objectives of the series are clearly outlined: to present via translation “[…] important American women poets who have nuanced and changed modern and post-modern poetry and whose influence was acknowledged by most literary histories and by most current criticism.” (in Steaua 3-4: 36) The list opens with Alice Notley and Diane Di Prima and continues with Brenda Hilman, Karoline Knox, Bernadette Mayer, Eileen Myles, Elinor Nauen, Rosmarie Waldrop, Fanny Howe, Lyn Hejinian, and Amy Gerstler. Cesereanu entrusted Lavinia Rogojină, a doctoral student at the Babeș Bolyai University’s Department of Comparative Literature in Cluj and a regular collaborator of Steaua, with the translation of all poems. The translations are preceded by very condensed and informative author biographies and are very accurate. This translation series was listed among the most valuable recent contributions the journal made to literary translation in Romania (Popescu 2014), a rare evaluation done to a translation series in a literary journal. A similar translation series appears in less known literary monthly Fereastra, based in the little town of Mizil in south-east Romania. Translated by poet Liviu Ofileanu (cf. Annex 1), the selections were grouped in four episodes, three published in 2011 and two four years later, in 2015, which suggests a series proposed by the translator himself, who published the Romanian versions at his idiosyncratic pace. It is highly unlikely that the series was in any way commissioned by the editorial board also because in the later issues there are republications of some of the 2011 translations. Ofileanu’s selections offer a glimpse of high quality contemporary poetry by iconic American poets, such as Gregory Corso and Elizabeth Bishop, and reflect the poet-translator’s concern for form. Another relevant indication of the translator’s agency and taste is his association of a poet like Frank O’Hara with Jericho Brown, a young American poet who made a name for himself 110 in the 2000s. Such eclectic associations and the rhythm in which he published the translations suggest that the series was a direct result of Ofileanu’s interest in American poetry and in these specific American poets. Dan Brudașcu, a highly prolific poetry translator and director of Cetatea culturală literary journal in Cluj-Napoca dedicated seven pages to contemporary African-American poets in 2007 (cf. Annex 1). His selection is not necessarily a reflection of his interest in American poetry in particular, but in the world’s poetries in general. As a literary historian and translator, Brudașcu has rendered a sizeable amount47 of various contemporary poets into Romanian, including authors from Malawi, Myanmar, and Korea. The eight African-American poets are presented with a poem and a photograph each and without any paratexts. The rest of the corpus offers the image of a translator motley crew that is very difficult to divide into categories, as many of them overlap. First, there is the very eclectic group of poets that only occasionally publish poetry translations. Their choices depend heavily on literary kinship or occasionality. For instance, there is Șerban Foarță, who besides the above-mentioned selections from T.S. Eliot six years later published a selection from Randall Jarrell,48 an American poet with whom he shares a passion for valuable literature49 and an irresistible attraction to prosodic formalism. There is also the above-mentioned Grete Tartler, who published poems by L. Glück and T. Roethke in 2007 and has never broached American contemporary poetry ever since. Like everything she does, her translations bore a superlative rubric moniker—„Poezii în capodopere” (Masterpieces)—, hence her choice of authors. Iconic American and Canadian poets often appeal to 47 References do not offer a clear number of his translations, but the common estimation is over 2,500 articles, essays, studies, translations from world poetry and fiction, reviews, notes, and interviews. 48 Jarell, Randall. 2014. “Casa din pădure.” (Şerban Foarţă, Trans.) In Cafeneaua literară 5: 24-25. 49 Ș. Foarță’s translation portfolio generally consists of works known for their prosodic formalism and creative use of language, such as Georges Perec’s La Disparition or Raymond Queneau’s poetry. 111 their Romanian peers, who embark on sporadic translation projects as a sign of appreciation: Emil Nicolae is the first entry in my corpus, with a one-time translation from Russian-American Joseph Brodsky.50 Isabel Vintilă tried her hand at translation with a rendition from Rita Dove,51 and so did Sînziana Mureșeanu with a selection from Margaret Atwood,52 Andrei Zanca with Michael Ondaatje,53 Antonela Suciu and Marius Conkan with Anne Sexton,54 Vlad A. Gheorghiu with Gregory Corso,55 and Radu Ulmeanu with a selection from Romanian-American writer and literary critic Claudia Moscovici.56 Andrei Mocuța published translations from the work of Richard Brautigan57 in four episodes in various literary journals, alongside several other translations of his fiction. Mocuța’s own work bears traces of Brautigan’s writing: the affinity is so strong that the Romanian poet curates some of Brautigan’s work on the website of the Writers’ Union in Arad, of which he is a member himself. Other poets are associated with two or more American writers in Romanian rendition: Ovidiu Simion, a poet and literary critic, translated three American poets—Rita Dove,58 John Berryman,59 50 Brodsky, Joseph. M. B. 2006. “Cântec din Belfast; Exploratorul polar; etc.” (Emil Nicolae, Trans.) In Ateneu 4: 24. 51 Dove, Rita. 2007. “Adolescenţă II; Bistro Styx.” (Isabel Vintilă, Trad.) In Bucovina literară 7: 40. 52 Atwood, Margaret. 2010. “Casa păpușilor înviată; Poetul s-a întors; Tăinuirea.” (Sânziana Mureseanu, Trans.). In Ateneu 1: 24. 53 Ondaatje, Michael. 2008. “Îngropat; Ţărmul medieval.” (Andrei Zanca, Trans.) In Euphorion 7-8: 18. 54 Sexton, Anne. 2010. “Sânul; Celebrarea uterului meu; Sângele meu la 40.” (Antonela Suciu and Marius Conkan, Trans.) In Steaua 1-2: 42-43. 55 Corso, Gregory. 2014. “Mandat pe treptele unui Harlem din Puerto Rico; Am 25 de ani; Am avut un manuscris al lui Shelley.” (Vlad A. Gheorghiu, Trans.) In Argeş 4: 20. 56 Moscovici, Claudia. 2012. “Îndemn; Scrierea dragostei; Rădăcini şi aer.” (Radu Ulmeanu, Trans.) In Acolada 4: 27. 57 Brautigan, Richard. 2012. “Stau în apartamentul unei necunoscute; Trăiesc în secolul douăzeci; Mi-a îmbătrânit nasul.” (Andrei Mocuţa, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă 9: 14; Brautigan, Richard. 2013. “Autostopistul galileean; Floriburgeri; Ora eternităţii.” (Andrei Mocuţa, Trans.) In Arca 4-6: 241-247; Brautigan, Richard. 2014. “Poveste de dragoste; Visele sunt precum; Scurtă incursiune în dispărut.” (Andrei Mocuţa, Trans.) In Arca 4-6: 236-243; Brautigan, Richard. 2012. “Poeme de Richard Brautigan.” (Andrei Mocuța, Trans.) In Steaua literară, artistică și culturală, July 12: Web. http://bit.ly/2nVY8KA. Last accessed: February 09, 2018. 58 Dove, Rita. 2014. “Grădina secretă; Adolescenţă II; Zice Shakespeare.” (Ovidiu Simion, Trans.) In Euphorion 9-10: 24. 59 Berryman, John. 2011. “Cîntece onirice.” (Ovidiu Simion, Trans.) In Euphorion 3-4: 24; Berryman, John. 2011. “Cîntece onirice.” (Ovidiu Simion, Trans.) In Vatra 5-6: 156-160. http://bit.ly/2nVY8KA 112 and Sylvia Plath60—in local journal Euphorion and in Vatra, two magazines that also published his poetry; haiku poetess Teodora Moțet translated Canadian haiku authors Winona Baker61 and Bruce Ross,62 but also left her comfort zone and translated selections from the poetry of Langston Hughes63 and Leonard Cohen64); late poet Radu Șuiu translated Linda Gregerson,65 Brian Swann,66 and Tony Hoagland67 in Constanța-based journals Agora and Tomis, Dan Sociu approaches poems by Charles Bernstein,68 James Tate,69 Paul Killebrew70 in a short series of translations published in Cuvântul. Sociu’s meeting with Killebrew resulted in the latter’s translation of one of Sociu’s poems for the New York-based journal Calque.71 Ioan Radu Văcărescu, president of the Writers’ Union in Sibiu, has approached only quintessential women writers like Anne Sexton72 and Sylvia Plath.73 At the opposite pole, young fiction writer Florin Buzdugan, a Master’s student at the time, chooses to translate Andrea Cohen,74 a young writer herself, just like Florin Prodan, who appears in the corpus with a single entry, a selection from Anna Grace.75 To this motley crew, one must add republications of older translations, such as Marin Sorescu’s and Gh. Șerban’s rendition of some of W.S. Merwin’s 60 Plath, Sylvia. 2009. “Tati; Dama Lazăr; Colosul.” (Ovidiu Simion, Trans.) In Vatra 9-10: 159-162. 61 Baker, Winona. 2008. “Kwaguilth.” (Teodora Moţet, Trans.) In Amurg sentimental 4: 12. 62 Ross, Bruce. 2013. “Summer Drizzles…” (Teodora Moţet, Trans.) In Amurg sentimental 8: 16. 63 Hughes, Langston. 2010. “Negrul vorbeşte despre râuri.” (Teodora Moţet, Trans.) In Amurg sentimental 8: 12. 64 Cohen, Leonard. 2011. “Love-Dance.” (Teodora Moţet, Trans.) In Amurg sentimental 11: 12. 65 Gregerson, Linda. 2012. “Sfârşitul zăpezii.” (Radu Şuiu, Trans.) In Agora 46: 21. 66 Swann, Brian. 2012. “Locul.” (Radu Şuiu, Trans.) In Agora 46: 21. 67 Hoagland, Tony. 2007. “Comenzi pentru pianul de jucărie.” (Radu Şuiu, Trans.) In Tomis 8: 59-60. 68 Bernstein, Charles. 2008. “Mulţumesc pentru că spuneţi mulţumesc.” (Dan Sociu, Trans.) In Cuvântul 2: 19. 69 Tate, James. 2008. “Stră-stră-etc. unchiul meu Patrick Henry; Niciodată la fel.” (Dan Sociu, Trans.) In Cuvântul 4: 47. 70 Killebrew, Paul. 2007. “Urbancolia.” (Dan Sociu, Trans.) In Cuvântul 12: 33. 71 Sociu, Dan. 2009. “Four Sonnets.” (Paul Killebrew, Trans.) In Calque. New Translations 5: 24. 72 Sexton, Anne. 2014. “Atincerea; Sărutul; Interogarea bărbatului cu mai multe inimi.” (Ioan Radu Văcărescu, Trans.) In Euphorion 7-8: 24. 73 Plath, Sylvia. 2017. “Oaie rătăcită; Ariel; Vânătaie; etc.” (Ioan Radu Văcărescu, Trans.) In Euphorion February 02. Web: http://bit.ly/2neOrYe. Last accessed: January 27, 2018. 74 Cohen, Andrea. 2014. “Brutal; Pricomigdale; Natură moartă cu un copil.” (Florin Buzdugan. Trans.) In Steaua 11-12: 65-66. Web: http://bit.ly/2H3TJhI. Last accessed: February 09, 2018. 75 Grace, Anna. 2009. “Legendă şi adevăr.” (Florin Prodan, Trans.) In Oglinda literară 90: 4580. http://bit.ly/2neOrYe http://bit.ly/2H3TJhI 113 poems76 in 13 Plus, Baconsky’s translations of e. e. cummings77 and Langston Hughes78 in Fereastra, or the unattributed translations of T.S. Eliot’s poetry. Second, a much more coherent translation program can be attributed to poets like Alex Văsieș, Chris Tanasescu, and Claudiu Komartin. Since January 2016, Steaua has been featuring monthly translations from American poets by young Romanian poet Alex Văsieș. The two-year translation series—“Autoportret în oglindă convexă” (cf. Annex 1)—is identified from the get-go as the translator’s personal project, who borrowed John Ashbery’s appropriated title to warn the readers about a subjective selection criterion: It is my turn to borrow this title for the series I propose in the upcoming several issues of Steaua because these translations from English-speaking authors are subjective choices that I also consider to be essential for those Romanian readers interested in fresh, personal forms of Anglophone poetic discourse. (Translator’s note to “Autoportret în oglinda convexă,” Steaua 1/2016: 18, emphases mine) The compilation proposed by Văsieș mirrors his attention to contemporary world literature stage, also visible in his own writing through references to poets like Shakespeare, Ovid, Yehuda Amichai, or A. R. Ammons (Ciorogar 2016: web). Besides translating iconic poets like Robert Haas or Philip Levine, he also includes Peter Balakian, the year’s Pulitzer-prize winner, or Carolyn Forché, whom he introduces as a prime representative of the poetry of witness, or Liam Rector, whose poetry always tries, as Văsieș explains in his note, ‘to reorder a superabundant reality,’ just like the translator’s own poetry, which builds on the tiniest details of real life (Baghiu 2012: web). As a professor of American poetry at the University of Bucharest and a poet himself, Chris Tanasescu showed interest in young American poetry and translated a series of authors that were 76 Merwin, W. S. 2010. “Despărţire; Economie; Poemul.” (Marin Sorescu, Gh. Şerban, Trans.) In 13 Plus 1-3: 54. 77 Cummings, E. E. 2012. “Dacă nu poţi mânca.” (A. E. Baconsky, Trans.) In Fereastra 3: 15. 78 Hughes, Langston. 2012. “Jaz.” (A. E. Baconsky, Trans.) In Fereastra 3: 15. 114 in their thirties in the mid-2000s, such as Roger Craik79 and Meghan O’Rourke,80 along with others that I shall analyse in more depth in the following section on transnationalist poet-translators. His interest in contemporary American poetry found a good host in a new hip literary journal, Poesis International, coordinated by Claudiu Komartin. Komartin had toyed himself with translation from American poetry in 2009 with a selection from Denise Duhamel81 and in 2012 with a co-translation of a poem by W.D. Snodgrass82 with Vlad Pojoga, published on his own personal blog. At Poesis International, Komartin brought together a number of poets who steadily supplied translations for every issue, so that the journal became a hub of quality U.S. and Canadian contemporary poetries, featuring young poets like Sherman Alexie, Ilya Kaminsky, Valzhyna Mort, and Martin Woodside, along with celebrated established authors such as Gary Snyder and Anne Carson. A third category brings together graduate students that moonlight as literary critics and/or poets and who once in a while publish translations of poetry in the journals they regularly or only occasionally contribute to on other projects. It is the case of (at the time) doctoral student Călina Părău, a collaborator of Cluj-Napoca-based journal Steaua, who published selections from the poetries of Albert Goldbarth,83 Alan Britt84—an American poet and academic with strong ties to the Babeș Boliay University in Cluj—, and Florida-born poet and creative writing professor Tara Skurtu,85 who was a Fulbright postdoctoral scholar in Romania at the time. Student-translators usually gather 79 Craik, Roger. 2007. “Poeme de Roger Craik.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Familia 11-12: 278-282. 80 O’Rourke, Meghan. 2007. “Poeme de Meghan O'Rourke.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Familia 11-12: 283-287. 81 Duhamel, Denise. 2009. “Barbie budhistă; Cea-al-cărei-vagin-înghiţea-bărbaţi; Noe şi Ioana D’Arc.” (Claudiu Komartin, Trans.) In Cuvântul 5: 31. 82 Snodgrass, W.D. 2012. “Albert Speer. Ministru de război.” (Claudiu Komartin and Vlad Pojoga, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2C44C3s. Last accessed: February 17, 2018. 83 Goldbarth, Albert. 2015. “Dacă am admite; Cântec dimensionat în marmură; etc.” (Călina Părău, Trans.) In Steaua 5- 6: 38-39. 84 Britt, Alan. 2014. “Ciocănitoarea pufoasă; Geneza în această zi şi în acest veac; Vise de august.” (Călina Părău, Trans.) In Steaua 9-10: 70-71. 85 Skurtu, Tara. 2015. “Derivativi.” (Călina Părău, Trans.) In Steaua 3-4: 21-22. http://bit.ly/2C44C3s 115 around journals that are committed to publishing debuts, translations included. It is the case of Orizont literar contemporan (Contemporary Literary Horizon), a bilingual multicultural journal whose editorial team consists of many graduate students in the Literary Translation Master’s Program at the University of Bucharest. The structure of the team is a complex network that links authors and translators from various countries, such as Great Britain, United States, Italy, Brazil, and Uruguay. With a consistent translation agenda and curated by translators, this journal is fed foreign contemporary poetry through the ties it established with many ‘small worlds’ abroad. It is a respectable publication venue for many young enthusiastic translators like Ioana Sabău, who translated Spanish-American poetess Lea Diaz;86 Zenovia Popa, translator of Peggy Landsman;87 Aura Mircea, who renders Mary Ann McCarra Fitzpatrick’s poems into Romanian;88 Florina Sămulescu, translator of Canadian Jane Mellor,89 American John Tischer,90 and, in a different periodical, of Jude English;91 Cristiana Ghiță, translator of another Canadian, Carole St. Aubin;92 Iulian Trandafir, translator of Burt Rashbaum’s poetry;93 and Adriana Boagiu, who translates 86 Diaz, Lea. 2015. “Griselda, Mariposa de Ensueño = Griselda, dream butterfly = Griselda, fluturele visului.” (Ioana Sabău, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 4: 23-24. 87 Landsman, Peggy. 2011. “Tuba Libre; White Table Wine; The moon.” (Zenovia Popa, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 1: 25-26. 88 McCarra Fitzpatrick, Mary Ann. 2011. “Page-Turner (can one trust the narrator?); Seven-on-five.” (Aura Mircea, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 4: 36-37. 89 Mellor, Jane. 2011. “4 Days in New York = 4 zile în New York.” (Sînziana Mihalache. Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 3: 7; Mellor, Jane. 2012. “Stinson Beach = Plaja Stinson.” (Florina Sămulescu, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 2: 19-20. 90 Tischer, John. 2012. “Brownian Life; Ode to John Lennon’s Diary; Poem to my Teacher = Viaţă brawniană = Odă la jurnalul lui John Lennon = Poem pentru profesorul meu.” (Florina Sămulescu, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 2: 22-23. 91 English, Jude. 2012. “Portret; Pragul iadului; Gânduri de ciocolată.” (Florina Sămulescu, Trans.) In Oglinda literară 126: 8078. 92 St.-Aubin, Carole. 2011. “Butterfly Moon = Luna fluturelui; The Root of Summer = Esenţa verii.” (Cristiana Ghiţă, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 3: 22-23. 93 Rashbaum, Burt. 2012. “Wind Takes Over = Stăpânirea furtunii.” (Iulian Trandafir, Trans.) Orizont literar contemporan 3: 38-40. 116 American poet Donald Riggs.94 The more prominent authors are also translated by the senior staff of the journal, such as Editor-in-Chief Daniel Dragomirescu, who offers Romanian versions for John Tischer’s poems.95 They also practice collective translation, as was the case of poems by Americans Jennifer Ransom96 and Mike Foldes.97 Academic programs have, I would maintain, a highly significant impact on contemporary poetry translations. Many translators and poet-translators belong to academia and their selections echo their scholarly work, as wil become more obvious in the section on transnationalism and academic mobility (2.2.4). Another relevant example is the Master’s Program in the Translation of Literary Text at the University of Bucharest, a mother lode of good translations of contemporary British literature, published in volumes and in periodicals by graduate students under Lidia Vianu’s guidance. Or a periodical like Steaua dedicating a generous number of pages to Irish literature on the occasion of Declan Kiberd’s Doctor Honoris Causa award at the Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj, fifteen years after the university founded a program dedicated to Irish Studies. Victor Olaru, a professor at the University of Craiova, has been publishing poetry translations on a regular basis since 1982 in local literary journals Ramuri and Scrisul românesc. Since I have established 2007 as a starting point of this data-intensive subchapter, most of his translations have not been included in this corpus,98 but he needs to be retained as a classic example of a scholarly career significantly 94 Riggs, Donald. 2012. “After Kirchway after Keats = După Kirchaway după Keats.” (Adriana Claudia Boagiu, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 2: 20-21. 95 Tischer, John. 2013. “Locul de naștere al lui Kafka, etc.” (Daniel Dragomirescu, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 2: 20-21; Tischer, John. 2013. “Poet at Work = Poeta al trabajo = Poet la lucru.” (Daniel Dragomirescu, Trans.) In Orizont literar contemporan 1: 36. 96 Ransom, Jennifer. 2013. “Făcătorii de ploaie; Vizită.” (Translated collectively by the editors.) In Orizont literar contemporan 2: 17-18. 97 Foldes, Mike. 2013. “Betsy Tango.” (Translated collectively by the editors.) Orizont literar contemporan 2: 25; Foldes, Mike. 2012. “Creeks and Crayfish = Păraie şi raci; Lulla-Bye = Cântec de leagăn.” (Mircea Filimon, Trans.). In Orizont literar contemporan 5: 30-31. 98 His Curriculum Vitae lists sixteen American poets and two Canadian poets translated between 1982 and 2006: http://bit.ly/2BBieSS. Last accessed: February 18, 2018. http://bit.ly/2BBieSS 117 complemented by poetry translations (cf. Annex 1). Olaru’s interest in foreign literatures produced an impressive number of renditions from Irish, British, Scottish, Australian, and Jamaican poets, alongside over twenty American and Canadian authors. He also translated occasionally theoretical essays on the practice of translation, signed by reputed authors like Susan Bassnett99 or Adam Sorkin100—one of the most prolific U.S. literary translators of Romanian literature. Besides these examples that have articulated a sort of translation program, there are also episodic translations done by various Romanian scholars in literary journals typically and very conveniently based in the cities where they work: University of Iași professor Ligia Doina Constantinescu translated Elizabeth Winder101 and Alice Vedral Rivera102 in Iași-based Poezia; Ana Oloș, a former professor at the Nord University in Baia-Mare and founder of a Canadian Studies program there translated Canadian George Elliott Clarke103 and American Nancy Burke104 and published these translations in Poesis and Nord Literar, both journals based in the same county; Dan H. Popescu, a professor at the Partium Christian University in Oradea, co-translated Bill Knott105 with Adrian Olah, this time in a journal based in the south-eastern town of Constanța. There is also the association between Viorica Patea, professor of American literature at the University of Salamanca, and Daniela Oancea, a Master’s Student (at the time) in the MA program in the Translation of 99 Cf. Olaru’s CV, in Ramuri September-October 1992. 100 Cf. Olaru’s CV: Sorkin, Adam. 1999. “’Boala traducerii’ și însănătoșirea poeziei.” In Ramuri February issue. 101 Winder, Elizabeth. 2015. “Anunţarea iernii.” (Wojciech Maślarz, Trans. from the Czech; Ligia Doina Constantinescu) In Poezia 3: 142-143; Winder, Elizabeth. 2015. “Sora lui Kafka.” (Ligia Doina Constantinescu, Trans.) In Poezia 3: 141. 102 Vedral Rivera, Alice. 2015. “Mamă a oraşelor.” In Poezia 3: 140. 103 Clarke, George Elliott. 2008. “Biserica baptistă africană din Cherrzbrook; Ecleziastul; Sonet alb.” (Ana Olos, Trans.) In Poesis 3-5: 98. 104 Burke, Nancy. 2012. “La început; Meditaţii de iarnă; Amintirile celorlalţi.” (Ana Olos, Trans.) In Nord literar 11-12: 24. 105 Knott, Bill. 2009. “Poem în proză; Poem poeziei; Moarte.” (Dan H. Popescu and Adrian Olah, Trans.) In Tomis 12: 50. 118 Literary Text at the University of Bucharest, who translated largely unknown transnational poetess Patrizia de Rachewiltz.106 Finally, the fifth and most anomalous and heterogeneous category brings together the one- time translation by Liliana Rusu, a lecturer at the University of Galați in Eastern Romania, who created a Romanian selection of what appears to be her favorite pop song lyrics by Leonard Cohen,107 Sting,108 Richard Marx,109 and Chris Rhea;110 young professional translator Corina Dragomir, who seems to have translated poetry purely haphazardly, out of her own personal interest, as there appears to be no other motivation for Dragomir’s ambitious translation from the poetry of two important names like Sexton111 or Ginsberg;112 painter Ileana Grivu, who translated Louise Glück113 and Gerard England,114 a poet I could not identify, but who is listed under American poetry translation in the NLR bibliography); and one translator that does not show up in any other literary context, Alina Sorescu, responsible for a selection from Kathleen Graber’s poetry.115 2.1.3. A Network Analysis Intuitively, poetry translation in Romania resembles a small-world structure, but the nodes in this network, the translators, are part of a larger network that is set in motion by connectivity, both 106 Rachewiltz, Patrizia de. 2015. “Unde tu eşti numai ochi; Nu eu, ci copilul; Arată-mi calea.” (Daniela Oancea and Viorica Patea, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă 10: 18. 107 Cohen, Leonard. 2015. “Dansează acest vals.” (Liliana Rusu, Trans.) In Negru pe alb 22: 52. 108 Sting. 2015. “Luna pe strada Bourbon.” (Liliana Rusu, Trans.) In Negru pe alb 22: 51. 109 Marx, Richard. 2015. “Hazard.” (Liliana Rusu, Trans.) In Negru pe alb 22: 51. 110 Rhea, Chris. 2015. “Cafeneaua albastră.” (Liliana Rusu, Trans.) In Negru pe alb 22: 50-51. 111 Sexton, Anne. 2010. “După Auschwitz.” (Corina Dragomir, Trans.) In Tomis 5: 56. 112 Ginsberg, Allen. 2010. “Un supermarket din California.” (Corina Dragomir, Trans.) In Tomis 5: 55. 113 Glück, Louise. 2008. “Parabola credinţei; Miez de noapte.” (Ileana Grivu, Trans.). In Oraşul 10:46. 114 England, Gerard. 2008. “Previziuni de octombrie.” (Ileana Grivu, Trans.) In Oraşul 10: 46. 115 Graber, Kathleen. 2011. “Regatul magic.” (Alina Sorescu, Trans.) In Ramuri 6: 20. 119 internal and external (the way it relates to other exterior networks). Each unit in the literary translation system—authors, translators, journals, presses, etc.—forms a complex network both separately and together; that is, each unit can be, in turn, vertex (or node) and edge. For the purpose of this section, the nodes will be the translators and the authors they translate, and literary journals will be the edges, a structure that will hopefully show us how “[t]he whole emerges, through self- organization, from the local interactions.” (Marais 2014: 31) As explained in section 1.2., such real-life networks are characterized by non-trivial features. The first non-trivial feature is their scale-free distribution, that is, the number of links emanating from a node can be as low or as high as possible: translators can work on one hundred translations or on one translation only. Scale-free distribution is driven by the power law, which stipulates that the proportion of nodes having k neighbours is [proportional to] k to a certain power, which results in the majority of nodes having a small number of neighbors, with only some of the nodes acting as hubs, or connectors. Another feature is the (anti)correlation between degrees of neighboring nodes: nodes with a large value of the degree tend either to ‘attract’ or to ‘repel’ nodes with a similar degree, “a property known as assortativity or disassortativity, respectively.” (Caldarelli and Garlaschelli 2009: 115) Finally, a third important feature is clustering. A clustering coefficient is a measure of connectedness, the degree to which nodes in a network tend to cluster together. As noted by Caldarelli and Galaschelli, high clustering is often combined with a small value of the average distance between pairs of node, and the term ‘small world effect’ is used to describe this combination. This third feature observed in real-life networks was actually the one that drove scientists to move away from Erdős and Rényi’s theory of random networks (1959), according to which N-labeled nodes are connected with randomly placed links. According to Granovetter (1973), highly connected clusters (networks) are linked to other tightly knit networks by what he called 120 ‘weak ties.’ As he further argues, clustering is ubiquitous, it is not only a property of society; and so, clustering is a generic property of networks and real networks cannot be fundamentally random, as claimed by Erdős and Rényi, who viewed society as a random graph. Society is “a collection of complete graphs, tiny clusters in which each node is connected to all other nodes within the cluster.” (Barabási 2003: 42) Therefore weak ties are our bridge between our small world and the outside world. Translation and the relationship literary translators and, by extension, a literature establish with foreign authors are such essential weak ties. The examination of hierarchical clustering— hierarchically arranging the network into groups according to a specified weight function—has proven very useful for identifying community structures in a network. Marais suggests TS scholars should look into computational work done to study systems at the edge of chaos such as weather and traffic, as “the possibilities seem to be huge” (2014: 45). In order to visualize the topology of the literary translation network in periodicals I shall use graph models, “[…] important benchmarks for understanding complex networks, […] used to test candidate mechanisms believed to be responsible for the onset of a particular topological feature, thus providing an insight into realistic network formation processes.” (Caldarelli and Garlaschelli 2009: 11) After feeding the software with the bibliographic information presented in this section and in the following one (translations in periodicals done by local and transnational translators), the generated network presented in Figures 1a and 1b shows a disconnected graph consisting of 310 nodes (authors and translators) and 302 edges (publication venues) (cf. Annex 2). This graph is organized in a giant component—a connected graph containing a significant proportion of the total number of nodes—and 29 various other clusters (smaller connected graphs). The giant component (G0, Figures 2a and 2b) exhibits 222 nodes and 241 edges and accounts for 71.61% of the network’s nodes and 79.80% of the same network’s links. 121 Figure 1a. Network of contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translations in PP between 2007 and 2017 (without node labels) 122 Figure 1b. Network of contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translations in PP between 2007 and 2017 (with node labels) 123 Figure 2a. The giant component (G0) in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (without node labels) Legend: red = translators, green = authors 124 Figure 2b. The giant component (G0) in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (with node labels) Legend: red = translators, green = authors 125 The second and third components are drastically smaller, each accounting for only 3.87% of the nodes in the network. All the other 27 clusters account for 20.65% of the total number of nodes. Although this is an unconnected graph and the connectedness (or the density) is very low, the analysis helps us understand that disregarding the “strays” (G3 – G29) means neglecting a fifth of the network—that is, 27 components of translators and authors: G components = 30 G0 nodes = 222 (71.61%) G0 edges = 241 (79.80%) G nodes = 310 G1 nodes = 12 (3.87%) G1 edges = 11 (3.64%) G edges = 302 G2 nodes = 12 (3.87%) G2 edges = 5 (1.65%) G3-29 nodes = 64 (20.65%) G3-29 edges = 45 (14.91%) Table 1. The size of the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP The disconnectedness of the graph has consequences on the graph’s density, which is very low (0.006), as well as on the average degree (the number of connections per node). With a number of links per node varying between 1 and 68, the average degree for the whole network (G) is 1.9483 and 2.1711 for G0, while G1 (Figure 3) and G2 (Figure 4) show slightly lower values (lower translations per node), of 1.8(3) and 1.6666 respectively. The values increase in the case of the weighted average degree (with the number of translation features per author factored in) by 30% for G and by 22% for G0. While this coefficient is obviously a useful measurement for the network in its ensemble, it also demonstrates how critical it is not to treat agents as a social average, like traditional sociology has taught us to. If we do so, an agent with 68 links (translated authors) may be evaluated like one with two links only if those two links (authors) are deemed important for one reason or another. This shows us that our reading of data as human beings with a certain culturally- trained profile may be biased and may reflect on our analysis, whereas adopting an algorithmic and computational perspective can provide different kind of results encouraging a more rigorous reading of the same data. 126 Figure 3. The G1 component in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (Translators: L. Rusu, T. Moțet, A.E. Baconski, P. Solomon). Legend: red = translators, black = authors Figure 4. The G2 component in the 2007-2017 network of translations in PP (Translators: F. Samulescu, D. Dragomirescu, S. Mihalache) Legend: red = translators, black = authors 127 Finally, and very importantly, the low density and average degree and the extremely weak clustering of the network (0.06 both for G and G0 and 0 for G1 and G2) demonstrate that the small world effect is not present and that, in spite of its size, this is a highly a-social, fragmented network that justifies seeing literary translation in this particular context in terms of associations rather than in terms of any other cohesive structure. A most relevant example in this respect is the association of reputed translator G. Tartler with occasional translator I. Grivu, whom I initially placed in two different categories in the functional analysis. The computational analysis, however, shows that Tartler and Grivu actually form a highly ranked component by themselves, G3, due to their translations of Louise Glück. The danger of bias is also reflected by the betweeness centrality coefficient (bc), which is a measure of centrality in a graph based on the shortest paths—that is, a quantification of the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other nodes. The investigation of the giant component G0 (222 nodes and 241 edges) reveals the most interesting facts. Since authors and translators are treated equally (they are all nodes), both categories are bound to appear as central nodes in this network. According to the betweeness centrality coefficient, the top ten nodes in the network consist of an equal number of translators and authors (Figures 5-14), who most influence the flow in the network. What is most striking though is the fact that one of these top agents is translator Nina Cassian, who is present in the corpus with only five translated authors in two haphazard translation events. However, the authors she translated and their popularity with other translators made Cassian acquire a position of power in terms of placement in the network: she is so well positioned, that it is very likely for her to be “bumped into” by researchers accessing the network from very different points of entry. Also, while I was expecting to see translators O. Iacob (Figure 5), A. Văsieș 128 (Figure 6), C. Tanasescu (Figure 8), and L. Ofileanu (Figure 11) reflected by these measurements because of the make-up of their portfolios and number of edges departing from them, my initial reading of the corpus could not place authors and translators at the same level. The computational network analysis quickly disclosed that authors are also well-positioned in the network (Figures 7, 9, 12, and 13) due to the positions their translators hold, and not necessarily to the number of times they were translated: the more central the translator is in the network, the more visible authors become in the respective network. For instance, Alice Notley was translated only twice, but because she was translated by Văsieș, she ranks the 11th (bc = 0.0485), while Lawrence Ferlinghetti (bc = 0.015), Rita Dove (bc = 0.005), or Langston Hughes (bc = 0.0005), who were each translated three times, but by various translators with lower centrality scores, do not come in anywhere close to Notley. Figure 5. Translator O. Iacob (bc = 0.3878) 129 Figure 6. Translator A. Văsieș (bc = 0.1816) Figure 7. Author J. Ashbery (bc = 0.1177) 130 Figure 8. Translator C. Tanasescu (bc = 0.1160) Figure 9. Author C. Simic (bc = 0.0926) 131 Figure 10. Translator N. Cassian (bc = 0.0856) Figure 11. Translator L. Ofileanu (bc = 0.0852) 132 Figure 12. Authors C.K. Williams (bc = 0.0583) and D. Levertov (bc = 0.0583) Figure 13. Author S. Plath (bc = 0.0577) 133 In terms of closeness centrality (cc), a measure of the degree to which an individual is near all other individuals in a network, the graphs shows a similar top six—O. Iacob (cc = 0.23), C. Simic (cc = 0.2029), C.K. Williams (cc = 0.2013), D. Levertov (cc = 0.2013), A. Văsieș (cc = 0.1963), and N. Cassian (cc = 0.1848)—, and four new author entries—A. Ginsberg (cc = 0.1844), L. Ferlinghetti (cc = 0.1823), S. Plath (cc = 0.1810), and R. Jarrell (cc = 0.1786). These are the individuals who are best placed to influence the entire network most quickly. In our case, O. Iacob and N. Cassian are the only translators in top ten who are bound to influence the network fast, the first due to her productivity (high number of links) and the latter due to her strategic choices. The ranking also reflects the relatively high number of translation events for each of these eight new authors in top ten (3 translation events each) and the high profile of their translators, such as Iacob and Ofileanu, which places them close to the other nodes in the network. Jarrell was translated only twice, but by well-positioned Iacob and selective Foarță, who himself has a strong position in the network because of his translations of Eliot, not because of the frequent translations. Closeness centrality has translator C. Tanasescu down over 60 spots and reflects his interest in having poets that have never been translated join the network. Finally, the Eigenvector centrality (or the EigenCentrality) provides a very similar top 10 to the closeness centrality (cf. Annex 2). Although very similar to the latter type, the EigenCentrality determines the importance of a node not only according to the number of links incident on that node, but also on the number of links their connections have. This is how, out of the following ten spots, five are claimed by authors like V. Clemente, E. Amatoritsero, or J. Sadre Orfai, who were translated by only one translator each (O. Iacob and D. Manole). However, because they were translated more than once and because they were published alongside poets like G. E. Clarke (as is the case with E. Amatoritsero), they acquire a high “all-around score,” making them very visible in 134 the network. Also, the EigenCentrality ranks authors better than translators than the other types of centrality do, a result of their translators’ agency in making the selections and deciding on the associations. This concise analysis shows a highly polymorphic and disconnected network that fits the rich- get-richer model best. Also known as the Barabási-Albert model, the rich-get-richer networks are an evolving model which changes as a function of time, by adding or dropping nodes and edges. Translators who appear to publish according to a certain program are bound to acquire more links over time, while not the same can be said about the author-nodes. The network will mainly expand due to translators’ contributions, not necessarily due to the prominence of an author, as there seems to exist a critical mass of translations for each author, expressed by G’s average degree of approximately 2. Moreover, authors gain centrality through their translators’ positioning, which emphasizes the bidirectionality of any author-translator relationship. Of all Romanian translators, the one whose influence drastically changes the positioning of any author-node is Olimpia Iacob, the subject of the following section. 2.1.4. Network-Driven Translation and the Poetics of Fecundity Olimpia Iacob is a former Associate Professor of English at the Vasile Goldiș University in Arad. Unlike other translators working in academia, her translations are little related to her scholarly work, in the sense that the latter does not determine her translation choices. The work of Canadian Stephen Gill has been to date the only topic she broached in her scholarly essays, as most of her other academic publications appear to be in the field of English as a Second Language. Currently retired, Dr. Iacob translated just shy of 70 American contemporary poets into Romanian, totalling one 135 hundred and ten selections for six literary journals, making her the best placed and most prominent translator within the network in question. She ranks first in all centrality charts and has the highest density of nodes attached (68), a position which reflects the motto on her translator page on the on the Writers’ Union website: “…there is an urgent call addressed to Romanian humanists that specialize in languages of wide circulation—that are also repositories of profuse cultural heritages— , a call which has to actually become a great responsibility, one that needs to be carried out perfectly and, most often, urgently.” (Ştefan Stoenescu, Ithaca, NY, USA, February 21, 2008) Only one of the journals she has been contributing to is based in the capital city, Bucharest, and has a national audience (Contemporanul-Ideea europeană), while all the others are supported by various regional branches of the Writers’ Union or local administration in north and north-east Romania: Convorbiri literare and Poezia are based in Iași, Poesis and Acolada are based in Satu- Mare, and Nord literar operates in Baia Mare. Her resumé lists a significantly higher number of literary journals to which she contributed, which indicates that her translation activity began many years before the NLR started the digitization of their bibliographies. In addition to the journals above-mentioned, she has been publishing selections in the following magazines: Confesiuni, Citadela, Semne, Steaua, Cronica, Caiete Internaţionale de Poezie, Origini, Hyperion, Ramuri, Viaţa românească, Unu, Porto-Franco, Centrul cultural Piteşti, Timpul, Familia, Vatra, and Caligraf. According to the same source, she also translated selections by ten poets I did not include in the corpus,116 as I could not find any bibliographical reference for them: Frank O’Hara, Charles Simic, Anne Sexton, James Wright, Louis Simpson, John Fenton, Marge Piercy, John Deane, Ted Kooser, and Michael Waters. Further information on the bibliographic references for some other poets she 116 These poets do appear in the corpus, but they are linked to other translators. 136 listed on her page were available only by analyzing the URL slugs of a suspended website showcasing the 2002-2012 archive of Convorbiri literare. Since the URLs contained the year and month the selection was published, I included eleven more poets in the corpus: A.R. Ammons (June 2003), W.S. Merwin (September 2003), Randall Jarrell (May 2007), Kenneth Rexroth (October 2006), Allen Ginsberg (November 2007), Louise Glück (November 2006), Derek Mahon (October 2012), and David Ignatow (December 2007). The corpus contains translations from the work of sixty-eight poets (cf. Annex 1), of which only four are Canadian (Stephen Gill alongside tanka writers Christina Cowling, Guy Simser, and Changming Youan). Her work is certainly not over. Growing curiosity made me sample a random issue (42- 46/2017) of Confesiuni literary journal, based in the small town of Petroșani. I was not surprised to find that Ms. Iacob supplied three full pages with translations from the work of Canadian Jennifer (Jinks) Hoffmann (p. 23), Americans Carolyn Mary Kleefeld (different selections from what is presented in my corpus) (p. 30), Isaac Goldenberg (p. 26), and Emily Vogel (p. 26). The latter two appear with only one poem each alongside poets of various extractions: Marrocan, Hindi, Welsh, and others. Further probing the journals she listed on her webpage led me to Citadela, issue 4- 6/2013, which features Iacob with a translation from an English-language poetry anthology published in 2011 in India. I posit that her eclectic translation program speaks for her agency in most projects she is associated with, just as her extensive selections and two volumes117 by largely unknown Kleefeld do.118 Her passion for poetry translation—for it is only passion that can animate a work which started back in 1976 and has continued to date—made her embark not only on a 117 Kleefeld. Carolyn Mary. 2013. Zori hoinari / Vagabond Dawns (Al. Zotta, Foreword; Olimpia Iacob, Trans.). Cluj: Editura Limes; Kleefeld. Carolyn Mary. 2014. The Divine Kiss / Sărut divin. Nistor, Ioan. În flăcările păpădiilor / In the Flames of Dandelions (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.). Cluj: Editura Limes, 2014. 118 Our corpus lists thirteen selections, alongside the one I mentioned (in Confesiuni 42-46/2017, p. 30). 137 marathon of poetry selections published in various periodicals, but also on a sizeable amount of stand-alone collections by authors she likely admires.119 Marius Chelaru, a poetry editor for Poezia and an author of haikus, offers a very rare testimony for Iacob’s translation program: Olimpia Iacob has been working for some good years now on building an interesting bridge between Romanian and English-language poetries. Be they American or British poets and/or poets coming from other spaces (of various extractions, but all writing in English), Iacob has authored the Romanian renditions for books in which they appear either alone, or paired with Romanian authors. (Chelaru 2016: web) What links Chelaru to Iacob is not only their affiliation with Poezia, but also their mutual interest in haikus: the translator has published several selections of haiku and tanka poetry in various literary journals, along with selections from American poets that were representatives for this form, such as Jim Kacian, whom she pairs in numerous volumes with Romanian writers interested in the same poetic form120 and whom she also features as her co-translator121 of several bilingual anthologies. In 2010 she also edited with Chelaru an anthology122 of international haiku poetry that reunited American and Romanian poets. But her wide-ranging interests are not at their best in a book like that: the bridges Chelaru refers to in his review of Iacob’s book are best represented in a volume 119 These volumes are presented later in this section and in section 4.2 (“Romanian Mainstream and Indie Publishers of Poetry in Translation after 1989”). 120 Novăcescu, Constantin and Kacian, Jim. 2016. O linişte stranie / Strange silence (Olimpia Iacob & Jim Kacian, Trans.) Timișoara: Waldpress; Kacian, Jim and Petean, Mircea. 2016. Haiku & Monoku (Jim Kacian); Haiku şi poeme taoiste/ Haiku & Taoist Poems (Mircea Petean) (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.) Cluj: Editura Limes, 2016; Kacian, Jim, Popin, Eugen D. 2017. No Way Out / Prins (Jim Kacian); Trupul țărânei / The Body of Dust (Eugen D. Popin). (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.) Timişoara: David Press Print. 121 Cicio, Ana and Joussen, Frank. 2013. Feţele iubirii/ The Faces of Love (Ana Cicio); Shades of Love / Nuanţele iubirii (Frank Joussen). (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.) Cluj: Editura Limes; ***. 2013. Stare la Ora Amiezii / Mood at Noon (Lidia Charelli. Maria Bennett. Rebecca Cook. Mia Barkan Clarke. Cassian Maria Spiridon.) (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.) Iași: Editura Timpul; Christi, Aura and Jones, Peter Thabit. 2014. Lăsaţi fluturii să zboare / Let the Butterflies Go (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.). Iași: Editura Timpul, ***. 2014. The Light Singing / Lumina care cântă (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.). Deva: Editura Emia; Barkan, Stanley H. and Corbu, Daniel. The Machine for Inventing Ideals / Maşina de inventat idealuri (Olimpia Iacob and Jim Kacian, Trans.) Iași: Editura Princeps Multimedia. 122 ***. 2010. Călători pe meridiane haiku. 20 de autori români și americani./ Travellers on Haiku Meridians. 20 Romanian and American Poets. (Marius Chelaru and Ce Rosenow, Forewords; Marius Chelaru and Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) Ploiești: Editura Premier. 138 like Punți peste ape123, a bilingual anthology of international poetry in which she brings together American poets, American poets of Korean origin, Korean poets, Romanian writers, and ‘international’ poets. “How did she come to embark on such projects?” was the next question. A brief selection from this above-mentioned anthology published in Convorbiri literare lists a book titled La margine de Hudson,124 published in 1986 by Cross-Cultural Communications, as a source for the selected poetry by Vince Clemente, Arthur Dobrin, John Dotson, and Laura Boss. It is not a single occurrence, as Cross-Cultural Communication, a New York state publisher, seems to have fueled many of her projects, just like The Seventh Quarry Press, a poetry magazine and press in Swansea, Wales. Further research into these presses led me to a volume they co-published in 2008, titled Poet to Poet #1: Bridging the Waters—Swansea to Sag Harbor, by Vince Clemente and Peter Thabit Jones, two authors Iacob has translated extensively into Romanian, both in journal selections125 and in stand-alone volumes.126 Further research into Clemente’s work revealed a long- time collaboration with Cross-Cultural Communication, who published two more volumes signed by him, while it was readily apparent that Thabit-Jones was the founder and editor of The Seventh Quarry Press. Since 2008, The American publisher has been a regular source for the Romanian translator, who publishes numerous and extensive selections authored by Stanley H. Barkan, founder of the said American press, alongside selections by his daughter, Mia Barkan Clarke. Not 123 ***. 2013. “Punți peste ape.” (Olimpia Iacob et al., Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10. Web: http://bit.ly/2nKIyCg. Last accessed: February 7, 2018. 124 The translator lists the title in Romanian, not in the original language. 125 Iacob even published a series of translations from this very volume, which likely marks the beginning of her collaborations with the American and Welsh publishers: “This first volume in a series, Poet to Poet # 1: Bridging the Waters, Swansea to Sag Harbour, […] offers two selections, one by American Vince Clemente and one signed by Welsh author Peter Thabit-Jones.” (Acolada 9-10: 27, 2008) 126 A note on Clemente’s author page at River Campus Libraries mentions his collaboration on a bilingual volume of poetry, Șoapte ale sufletului / Whispers of the Soul (2008), with Peter Thabit Jones, translated into Romanian by Olimpia Iacob (Iași: Editura Fundației Poezia, 2008). She is also the translator of Jones’s The Boy and the Lion’s Head, a verse drama with an introduction by Vince Clemente (Satu Mare: Editura Citadela, 2009). http://bit.ly/2nKIyCg 139 before long my online ‘detective’ work related to the Barkans ran into other familiar names—for instance, the reviews for Stanley H. Barkan’s ABC of Fruits and Vegetables (2012) are signed by Thabit-Jones and Maria Mazziotti Gillan, both poets Iacob has translated. Or here is S. Barkan pictured receiving “HOMER—the European Medal of Poetry and Art” along with William (Bill) Wolak, a poet that was translated by Iacob in a dedicated volume127 and in two other volumes128 featuring poetic dialogues with Romanian authors. Or here is B. Wolak’s 2015 volume illustrated by John Digby and his wife Joan, poets whom Iacob translated and published before. And finally, the ultimate example of network-driven translation—Iacob, a translator from the English exclusively, translated in 2015 Annelisa Addolorato,129 an Italian poet writing in Italian and Spanish. The mystery is quickly solved unintentionally by the translator’s note, which lists the bibliographic information for her translation into English,130 Addolorato’s English translation by Bill Wolak and his wife, poet Maria Bennett, who also appears on Dr. Iacob’s roster of translations. Hence it is very likely that Iacob translated Addolorato via the English translation published by the same Cross-Cultural Communication. It is also reasonable to think that she was introduced to Addolorato’s work by the said American couple. Her network is thus ever-growing and many of the poetries she has been translating since 2007 are interconnected in one way or another. That Iacob is a networker extraordinaire is clear. In network terms, she is a connector, a hub: not only does she connect cultures by means of translation, but she also assigns new tasks to the 127 Wolak, Bill. 2015. Deep into the Erasures of Night / Răsăriturile nopții (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.). Oyster Bay, NY: The Feral Press. 128 Nistor, Ioan and Wolak, Bill. 2016. Seminţe căutătoare de vânt / Wind-Seeking Seeds. (Olimpia Iacob and Bill Wolak, Trans.) Satu Mare: Editura Citadela; Wolak, Bill and Corbu, Daniel. 2016. In The Hall Of Lost Footsteps / În Sala Paşilor Pierduţi (Olimpia Iacob and Bill Wolak, Trans.) Iași: Editura Princeps Multimedia. 129 Addolorato, Annelisa. 2015. “Frenezia cuvintelor; Aparență; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 12: 134. 130 Addolorato, Annelisa. 2015. My Voice Seeks You (Maria Bennett and Bill Wolak, Trans.). Merrick, NY: Cross-Cultural Communication. 140 poets she translates, turning them into translators and co-translators of hers. Bennett, whom Iacob translated six times in selections for various journals according to the corpus, also features as her co-translator: once in a collection in which he appears as an author alongside Romanian Mircea Petean and as a co-translator of the latter’s work,131 and once as a co-translator of haikus132 only. It is also the case of poets Rebecca Cook133 and Kyung-Nyun Kim Richards,134 both co-translators in the bilingual volume they each co-author. Iacob operates within an unparalleled poetics of fecundity, which reflects on the wide range of roles that she assigns both to herself and to her around her, as well as in the varied nature of her projects, in the heterogeneity of publishers with whom she collaborates, and in her openness to all poetic genres. This poetics of fecundity that informs her work made me realize that Iacob is part of many tightly-knit circles (small worlds) that are related through several ties and that actually form a complex network. The most important tie may have been Marius Chelaru himself, who teamed up with Iacob on a quest to escort established international haiku poets to Romanian literature. My corpus shows that the process began in 2007-2008 with poet and publisher Stanley H. Barkan. During the same period, Chelaru himself published two selections by American haiku authors, Kerry Shawn Keys135 and Zinovi Vayman.136 Besides Barkan and other poets affiliated with his press, that year Iacob was still translating big names in American poetry, such as Mark Strand or Robert Creeley, 131 Bennett, Maria and Petean, Mircea. 2014. Because You Love / Fiindcă iubeşti (Maria Bennett) and Din poemele Anei / From the Poems of Ana (Mircea Petean) (Olimpia Iacob and Maria Bennett, Trans.) Cluj-Napoca: Editura Limes. 132 Dyson, Ketaki Kushari and Chelaru, Marius. 2014. Privirea ei ca o pasăre / Her Look like a Bird. An Anthology. (Olimpia Iacob and Maria Bennett, Trans.). Iaşi: Editura Timpul. 133 Tâlvescu, Dumitru and Cook, Rebecca. 2016. Umbra apei / The Shadow of Water (Olimpia Iacob and Rebecca Cook, Trans.) Deva: Editura Emia, Deva. 134 Chelaru, Marius, and Richards, Kyung-Nyun Kim. 2016. Miroase atât de frumos a linişte. / It Smells Of Silence So Beautiful. Antologie /Anthology. (Olimpia Iacob & Kyung-Nyun Kim Richards, Trans.). Iaşi: Editura Timpul. 135 Keys, Kerry Shawn. 2007. “Morfină pe rîul Susqueshanna; Crescînd sălbatec cu indienii.” (Marius Chelaru, Trans.) In Poezia 3: 115-117. 136 Vayman, Zinovi. 2008. “Suferinda mea mamă...; Universitate verde...; Harta lacului Baikal....” (Marius Chelaru, Trans.) In Poesis 9-10: 90. 141 but this kind of translation gradually subsided (with only Ferlinghetti and Plath in 2008, Adrienne Rich, Robert Pinsky, and Denise Levertov in 2009) and she focused on the network of poets that gravitated around Barkan. 2010 was a big year for Chelaru and Iacob, as they published a co- translation from Jim Kacian, “one of the half-dozen best-known practitioners of haiku outside of Japan,”137 alongside a selection translated by Iacob alone in Acolada. Most importantly, the two included Kacian in the 2010 anthology of haiku authors they co-edited and translated. A publisher himself besides being a renowned haiku poet, Kacian does not bring along any other American or international peers, but is present in various roles, as I have previously seen, in many projects curated by Iacob—a collaboration that was still very much active in 2016. Although Marius Chelaru played an important part in Iacob’s evolution, I suggest her network developed circles that were independent from their mutual interest in haiku and tanka poetry. Unlike Chelaru, she simply translates poetry, no matter what the poetic form is. Another indication is her collaboration with publishers based in Iași for those projects that included Chelaru, and her subsequent collaboration with more obscure, regional publishers based in cities across Romania, such as Limes in Cluj-Napoca, Citadela in Satu-Mare, or Emia in Deva. Her projects with established publishers in Iași, like Timpul or Fundația Revistei Poezia, are either projects with Chelaru or projects which included prominent local authors, such as Cassian Maria Spiridon, who is also the current Editor-in-Chief of Convorbiri literare. Such a convoluted publishing roadmap can obviously only be the outcome of the translator’s own grown network of relationships, and not the outcome of any local cultural policy. Perhaps the most compelling indication that she acted mostly alone, without any significant institutional support, is the disheartening lack of reviews of her work 137 Kacian, Jim. 2006. Presents of Mind (2nd edition). Winchester, VA: Red Moon Press. Web: The Haiku Foundation Digital Library, http://bit.ly/2FRKZcM. Last accessed: February 7, 2018. http://bit.ly/2FRKZcM 142 compared to the number of translations she has published. The very few reviews that do exist are brief and evasive, with only one or two praising the Romanian rendition: “a fluent rendition […] done with empathy and delicacy,” (Zanca 2017) or “a fresh reading.” (Antonesei 2017) The only extensive review, occasioned by Iacob’s translation of Kleefeld’s Vagabond Dawns, awarded the 2013 (Iași branch) Writers’ Union translation prize, does not assess in any way the translation and only mentions it as the sole measure against which one can judge the lyrical qualities of Kleefeld’s poetry (Nistor 2014: 239). Another extensive review of the same collection (Negreanu 2014) does not mention the translation at all, but talks only about the themes and motifs in Kleefeld’s work, although illustrating copiously the otherwise simplistic observations with translated fragments. The evolution of Iacob’s network of translated authors sheds light on two important phenomena that characterize certain chapters of poetry translation in Romania: the lack of copyright and the butterfly effect of personal networks. Shortly after I started researching her work I contacted the translator to let her know about this dissertation and ask for her help in locating the bibliographic information for the authors listed on the Writers’ Union website. The reply was prompt and stated that she was appreciative of my research and of my concern with copyright matters. That was obviously not the case at the time, as nothing in my e-mail message pointed at copyright issues, so it was most definitely the translator’s concern.138 She also tried to divert me from her corpus by pointing out that it had already been included in somebody else’s research. This incident made me realize why she stopped translating prominent poets and shifted her interest towards the network around Cross Cultural Communications: it was most likely because she did not need copyright for these translations. Specific nodes in her network, such as Stanley Barkan or Vince 138 See note 18. 143 Clemente—with whom she shares links which carry some of the greatest weight (six, respectively five features in literary journals)—were her very own lobbyists and all the other authors were happy to have their work translated into Romanian. The butterfly effect of literature had a paramount role in her growing the network. The connectionist mind of translators is reflected best in Iacob’s work, as well as in the case of many other translators, especially those that move constantly between cultures, as we shall see in the next subchapter. The concept of network-driven translation helps us pattern the apparent chaos that surrounds translators’ work in non-hegemonic contexts. It is built on the constant conflict between agent and system and is an expression of the network’s self-regulation. The continued work and efforts of Iacob as a literary translator can thus be understood as shaping her own corpus. Translators are denizens, agents who dwell knowingly in a certain place and know the rules of the place, therefore they constantly adapt to the make-up, or the topology of the network, understood in its real-world locales and societal nexuses. More importantly, translators influence the network accordingly, with significant effects on our understanding of agency. A networked understanding of these corpora (and their relations with the ‘originals’) within a poetics of fecundity has the potential to expand how we think of authorship and auctorial patterns in general. 144 2.2. (Dis)Connected Transnationalism 2.2.1. Translation and Transnational Movement “Translation by its very nature is transnational; it embodies intercultural exchange.” This is one of the key statements that open a recent book on the circulation and transmission of texts across languages as an enriching, productive process (Nelson and Maher 2013: 5). Besides the very transnational nature of any translation act, increasing connectivity and the receding economic and sociologic significance of national borders beg the adoption of a transnational perspective that fosters the inclusion of translation projects happening across linguistic boundaries. Translators who travel past national borders or who choose to emigrate oftentimes have publishing initiatives that link the spaces they inhabit or visit with their homeland and thus they take part in the global information flow. They also become small-scale actors on the stage of cultural diplomacy. They may even use translation as valuable currency for gaining literary prominence in the new space of adoption. In order to capture the complexity and liminality of such encounters, one needs to look at both the state and the non-state actors that contribute to the realization of such translation projects, alongside the unique sets of conditions that trigger these exchanges. Discussing Page and Miller’s claim that complexity is interested in a state between stasis and chaos, control and anarchy, particularity and universality, Marais argues, quoting Latour, that complexity thinking is also keen on analyzing the in-between “as an action, a verb, a movement,” (2014: 25) thus it is interested just as much in “in-betweening”—in borders, hybridity, and the effect of a reorganization of the same substrata.” (id.). Transnationalism is particularly well-suited for treatment within a chaos paradigm. Cultural hybridity as a dynamic site of cultural production requires a new framework to account not 145 only for the heterolingualism or the plurivocality of translation, but also for unconventional and non-hierarchical relationships between the ‘original’ and the translation, and between translators and authors (Bandia 2014). In describing the agency of translators working in a certain language—in this case, the Romanian—a transnational backdrop should gain, I suggest, more and more currency and salience. Since the anti-communist revolution and, more acutely, since it has joined the European Union in 2007, Romania has experienced a massive phenomenon of migration, which peaked in 2015 and placed the country second in the world after Syria in terms of displaced workforce.139 However, referring to transnationalism only in relation to migration would be short-sighted. As Aleida Assmann (2017) notes, ‘transnational’ bears no less than four meanings: first, non-state actors that operate in different countries; second, geopolitical units comprising different nations (e.g. the European Union); third, the impact of media beyond local and national frameworks; and fourth, “individuals and groups that move in space either voluntarily or under political or social pressure, while retaining and reconstructing within and among themselves a diasporic connection to their former homelands.” (ibid.: 66) Indeed, many of the Romanian migrants are writers, for whom translation is a way to keep themselves plugged, or re-territorialized in the Romanian literary world, as well as a way to help Romanian writers ‘spill’ over the national borders and make their work known internationally via translation. Eastern European poetry after communism was qualified by Andrew Wachtel as the New Internationalism (2006), according to which “the writer moves beyond nationalism to refine and expand a sense of national identity in an increasingly transnational world” (Woodside 2014: web) in order to remain relevant. Furthermore, besides immigrant writers there 139 According to the United Nation’s International Migration Report 2015 released in 2016, p. 19. Web: http://bit.ly/2B4utmZ. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. http://bit.ly/2B4utmZ 146 are writers and translators that are often on the move, engaged in academic mobility projects, who borrow practices and concepts from other cultures and from new types of communities (such as the digital ones) and applying them to their own, fostering new collaborations and initiatives. The latter phenomenon is classified by Moira Inghilleri (2016) as a transnationalism of the elites, animated by a cosmopolitan freedom, which should be distinguished from the hybridity that characterizes migration. She describes cosmopolitan spaces as difficult to pin down, as contact is limited or even virtual and “there is an expectation of a more reflective connection to the other.” (ibid.: 198) A first necessary condition for a transnational paradigm in TS is the abandon of binary structures of dominance. Boris Buden (2014) argues against the West vs. East dichotomy by using the very example of Eastern Europe. “Who can speak in the name of Eastern Europe?” he rightfully asks, pointing out that what we collectively call Eastern Europe should not be seen as a general cultural concept. Citing Habermas and the expression he used for the fall of communism in 1989— “the catching-up revolution” (1990: 180 cited in Buden)—he summarizes a number of qualifiers that have been used for characterizing that part of the continent: underdeveloped, belated, provincial, peripheral, “doomed to struggles for recognition” (Buden ibid.: 175); instead of proliferating those terms, he argues that a transnational study of culture needs to go beyond the East-West difference, because “the use of the cultural concept of the East leads necessarily to what Spivak calls complicity with imperialist or neo-imperialist projects.” (ibid.: 175) It seems right to conclude for the purpose of this project that a transnational paradigm in TS needs to refer to nations / cultures by their name or by their language(s). On a related note, Zrinka Stahuljak posits that “the proliferation of conflicts of a non-colonial nature and their mediatization in the global context call into question the predominant reliance on the postcolonial framework of colonizer-colonized, colonial hegemony, center-periphery, 147 metropole-colony, and hybridity.” (2010: 255) Grounded in the theoretical notion of “minor transnationalism,” she proposes an elaborate and “plural concept of empire” (id.) in TS and illustrates her theoretical approaches with the example of former Yugoslavia and of the Balkans, rightfully observing that “[m]ulti-centric transnational translations, when superposed on the post- imperial configuration, flatten and circumvent the hierarchy of the binary structure of domination.” (ibid.: 271) In the specific case of Romania, transnationalism is a suitable descriptive paradigm because it mirrors the organic need of Romanians to go beyond national identifications after 1989 and to reconfigure in themselves and in the ones around them the old ways of communism. Just like other members of the former Eastern Communist bloc, Romania was galvanized by “the desire to move toward a new political imaginary that dissolves the nation in ongoing local and global reconfigurations.” (Assmann 2017: 66) Besides the obvious reference to movement across nation- state borders (‘transit’), ‘trans-‘ is a premise for creativity, because it can also refer to ‘transfer’, ‘translation’, and ‘transmission’, to reshaping representations, relations, and recontextualizations within larger networks: The general challenge of the “trans-“ is to go beyond national identifications, investments, and interests, and to explore new forms of belonging, participation, and cultural identification in a world characterized by dispersed and displaced population with different historical experiences and trajectories. (id.) Cronin goes even further in arguing for a ‘trans-‘ paradigm and switches the positionality of the vantage point from ‘the national’ to ‘the local’: the “[…] concentration on one particular place becomes an opening out rather than a closing down, a foregrounding of a complexity of connectedness to other cultures, languages, histories, rather than a paean to singular insularity.” (2012: 40) A trans-local vista would then require a progenerative rather than a genealogical model, 148 “primarily concerned with current sets and fields of relationships for persons in a given lifeworld.” (2012: 51). It follows naturally in Cronin’s argument that positionality is much more appropriate to speak of than diversity, because Positionality is to do with the sets of relationships obtaining at any moment between and within groups, relationships that are subject to an endless process of change, change which is the very stuff of the human life-line and which crucially includes the dimension of power. […] Maintaining the open-ended, fractal dynamic of micro-modernity […] involves a commitment to the progenerative model of human interaction. (ibid.: 53) A second necessary condition for a transnational paradigm which is grounded in a progenerative model and which holds true especially in literary translation is the acknowledgment of a parallel kind of economy based on in-kind exchanges. Admittedly or not, literary barters have long been in place and they have paralleled literary exchanges that followed the well-known logic of money economy. Such barter exchanges may be fuelled both by literary kinship—we offer to translate authors that we like—and by the intimation of prospective gains—in our case, similar publication services in other cultures. In this parallel barter economy, translation is a very valuable currency—we need to remember and acknowledge that the value of a certain writer is measured, among other things, against the number of languages in which their work has been translated. This is one of the many cases in which so-called ‘major’ cultures look up to ‘minor’ ones—that is, relatively unknown authors from spaces of prominence look for literary legitimation by being translated in as many ‘small’ languages as possible. The prospects for both parties involved range from establishing a network of friends that share the same interest to extensive publication and travel opportunities. Romanian writers have long been involved in literary projects that cross national boundaries. While there has not been a coherent translation-oriented institutional program in place, the number 149 of such translation projects is far from being negligible and reflects Romanian writers’ interest in establishing and developing relationships with their foreign peers. According to Chapter 3, the beginning of the diplomatic relations between Romania and the United States has been immediately followed by a slew of translation projects by various Romanian scholars that benefited from the new academic mobility. The tradition continued until the Second World War, and gained a new impetus during the 1970s and the 1980s, when many Romanian writers either emigrated or asked for political asylum. This is also when the first translations from Canadian contemporary poetry started to take shape. After 1989, migration, the free movement of people, and academic mobility intensified exponentially. One of the most reputable global promoters of mutual understanding via cultural exchanges was the U.S. Department of State, who were the ones who actually coined the term “cultural diplomacy.” (von Flotow 2004, 2007) Several volumes of American poetry translated into Romanian were the result of the availability of grants through the Embassy of the United States in Bucharest, just as several translation projects before 1989 were carried out after various academics took academic trips to the U.S. and returned home willing to share through translation the richness of the culture they had experienced. However, many transnational translation projects have been simply the result of interpersonal networks. This subchapter examines translation events occasioned by exiled or immigrant poets, as well as ventures that resulted from scholarly research and academic mobility (Figure 14). 27.9% of the poetry translation in print periodicals140 is the result of transnational and academia-related initiatives (87 nodes out of 310). 140 The corpus presented in these visualizations includes all the translations published in print periodicals by transnational translators and do not include the anthologies that I describe in this section. Anthologies shall be approached separately from periodicals and stand-alone author volumes in section 4.2. 150 Figure 14. Transnational and academia-related translations in PP (2007-2017) - G 151 Out of these, almost half (42 nodes) pertain to the main component (Figure 15), formed by translators C. Tanasescu, N. Cassian, C. Firan, A. Carides, R. Hotăranu, and I. Ieronim and their 36 translated authors. Figure 15 shows a highly disconnected graph, with an extremely low density (0.0224), average degree (1.931), and clustering coefficient (0.1755). The main component (G0) displays significantly higher values for the average degree (2.3809) and a weighted average degree of 2.9523, a result of multiple authors translated by translators in G0 and of multiple selections of the same author’s poetry published by poets in G0 compared to all the other components. G0 presents four critical nodes in terms of connectedness: poets Stanley Moss and J. Ashbery, who, through occasional translator N. Cassian, connect translators C. Tanasescu and R. Tanasescu to translators around Scrisul românesc; and authors M. Woodside and A. Gritsman, who connect the same translators back to Scrisul românesc (translators R. Hotăranu, A. Carides, and C. Firan) through translator I. Ieronim. This shows again that authors and translators are equally important in terms of network connectedness and that the disappearance of any two of these nodes may lead to further heterogeneity and even to the collapse of the whole network. The importance of each of these nodes shall be further analysed throughout the following three sub-sections. 152 Figure 15. Transnational and academia-related translations in PP (2007-2017) – main component (G0) 153 2.2.2. Translating the Land of Exile The first exile-born translation project of contemporary American poetry after 1989 was the 1993 anthology141 put together by George Ciorănescu, a writer and translator who spent most of his life exiled in Paris and Munich. In Munich, he was Editor-in-Chief of Radio Free Europe, as well as in charge of the Romanian Department of the same station. It is during his time in Munich, towards the end of his life, that he put together this anthology. His eight poetry books, along with his two anthologies, one on contemporary American poetry and one on religious poetry, indicate that these books were all his own personal projects. The publishing house, Apoziția, bore the name of the journal founded by the Romanian literary circle in Munich, which he co-edited with Ion Dumitru towards the end of his life. Ciorănescu had been a fervent supporter of Romania’s European calling: in 1948 he defended his PhD thesis titled “Românii și ideea federalistă” (Romanians and the Idea of a Federation), in which he used historical facts to make the case for a united Europe and ignored the Soviet occupation of his country (Ștefănescu 1999). Poetry was for Ciorănescu the privileged literary form and the ultimate path towards knowledge: while his own poems reveal a complicated, stern relationship with the craft, the poet is praised for his anthologies and is dubbed an importer of good poetry who moves easily between registers, an anthologist who believed he had a duty to bring valuable literary pieces to his own culture (ibid.). The anthology is pretty slim, only 112 pages including color illustrations, but the contents lists important American poets, such as Frost, Masters, Sandburg, Pound, cummings, Eliot, and Ginsberg. The agency of the translator is clearly visible at the level of lexical choice. A comparison 141 Ciorănescu, George. 1993. Spicuiri din lirica americană contemporană (George Ciorănescu, Ed.; Stephan Eleutheriadis, Il.). Munich: Apoziția, 112 p. 154 of his translation of “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg with the translation done by Petru Ilieșu142 (2010: 28) for mainstream publisher Polirom reveals a much more accurate and engaged version by Ciorănescu. For instance, “The method must be purest meat / and no symbolic dressing” becomes in Ciorănescu’s words fără sos simbolic (very idiomatic, as in the culinary doar carne, fără sos), while in Ilieșu’s version the rendition is și nu un sos de înfrumusețare, which offers an unnecessary over- interpretation of ‘symbolic’ as ‘beautification’ (înfrumusețare). Then, “actual visions & actual prisons / as seen then and now” benefits from a literal translation in Ilieșu’s version, but becomes închisori adevărate / asa cum au fost percepute și asa cum sunt (“actual prisons / the way they used to be perceived and the way they actually are”), an interpretation ostensibly influenced by the former Communist regime in Romania, which the translator had fled. Ciorănescu also preserves the original punctuation, but Ilieșu drops the comma at the end of the second line, a technique which allows for a double interpretation of the Romanian version and masks the translator’s insecurities. Finally, the last stanza—“A naked lunch is natural to us, / we eat reality sandwiches. / But allegories are so much lettuce. / Don’t hide the madness.”—reveals a very conservative translation by Ilieșu, who chooses to render the absence of a subject before “don’t hide” as “they [the allegories]”. Instead, Ciorănescu interprets correctly the final line as an imperative and also translates “the madness” as “your madness”; in addition, he uses a much stronger word for the key in the whole text: Nu vă ascundeti demența (Don’t hide your dementia143). In stark contrast with his rendition, 142 Ginsberg, Allen. 2010. Howl și alte poeme. Antologie 1947-1997 (Domnica Drumea and Petru Ilieșu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom, 342 p. 143 Besides the medical connotation, the Romanian word is also common for expressing out-and-out madness. 155 Ilieșu’s awarded144 version inappropriately renders “a naked lunch” by un prânz gol (an empty lunch), although the original poem contains a deliberate allusion to the phrase “naked truth”.145 A second example of translation from contemporary U.S. poetry during a translator’s exile comes from perhaps the most celebrated Romanian writer that fled the country under communism, Nina Cassian, a poet based in New York for the last twenty-nine years of her troubled life, between 1985 and 2014. Besides being a successful poet and writer of children’s literature, Cassian made her name as a translator of Molière, Bertold Brecht, Paul Celan, or Victor Mayakovski. During her exile in the United States she published two short journal features of her most favorite contemporary American poets: Stanley Moss146 in 2009, and a second one featuring Richard Wilbur,147 Robert Lowell,148 John Ashbery,149 and Charles Simic150 in 2012. Somehow isolated from the hip literary scene in Bucharest, Cassian was guided by her close friend, poet Carmen Firan, to publish the translations in the provincial Scrisul românesc literary journal, managed, as I will explain later in this subchapter, by Firan’s father. Her brief introduction to her 2012 contribution is very revealing: she confesses she took the liberty of deleting the second stanza in Robert Lowell’s poem because she didn’t think it was related in any way to the first one; she admits to having been tormented by the fixed form of Wilbur’s poem, while also disclosing that the latter had also translated and included one of her poems in his Selected Poems; she identifies Simic’s poem as the easiest to translate and 144 The translation was awarded the “Andrei Bantaș” Foundation Prize for Translation from the English at the Romanian Writers’ Union Gala in 2011. 145 I suggest that a more appropriate translation would have been “un prânz gol-goluț” (cf. adevăr gol-goluț > the naked truth). 146 Moss, Stanley. 2009. “Flori de camp.” (Nina Cassian, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 7 (6): 17. 147 Wilbur, Richard. 2012. “Iertarea.” (Nina Cassian, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (6): 19. 148 Lowell, Robert. 2012. “Sudoarea nopții.” (Nina Cassian, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (6): 19. 149 Ashbery, John. 2012. “Variațiuni.” (Nina Cassian, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (6): 19. 150 Simic, Charles. 2012. “Clubul de noapte.” (Nina Cassian, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (6): 19. 156 the “incoherently-sophisticated” Ashbery as much more difficult. She concedes that her being low on energy was the reason why she did not translate more contemporary American poets (2012: 19). The choices she made in terms of translated authors place Cassian in one of the most strategic positions in the general graph (Figures 1, 2, and 10 section 2.1). In terms of transnational publications, she holds an equally important place: betweenness and closeness centralities have her ranked fifth in G and G0—a measure of her key-position in the network due to her translations of J. Ashbery and S. Moss, while the EigenVector places her just outside top 20 because of her low adjacency—that is, low number of authors translated and low connection to other nodes in the network. Although one-time events, Cassian’s translation vignettes and Ciorănescu’s anthology are the very illustration of kindred literary spirits and of the cosmopolitan ideal—that knowing the Other and being open to how they perceive us will lead to a better understanding of the self. Characterized by a high degree of spontaneity and of randomness in terms of publication plans (exemplified best by the one-time publication of a selection from poet John Haines151 by immigrant author Mariana Zavati-Gardner in regional literary journal Provincia Corvina or by the episodic translation of TS Eliot by Berlin-based author Aprilia Zank, both small, separated components in Figure 1), such translation initiatives are the expression of the translators’ interest in the literary values of their land of adoption or of the world literature in general, and the selection of authors simply reflect their personal taste. What defines such translations is a high degree of accuracy and a deep involvement with the text, which may often lead to better translations than the ones commissioned by publishing 151 Haines, John. 2008. “Hector; Timpul răsună; Pericol uşor.” (Mariana Zavati Gardner, Trans.) In Provincia Corvina 13: 26-27. 157 companies. They also tend to be forgotten or omitted from literary histories, as their translators are not physically present152 in the geographical space where they are published or circulated. 2.2.3. Transnational Literary Barters In her doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan, Nan Z. Da explains that “in occasional transnationalism, the literature or literary practices of the other are cited to enable a thought experiment or a political enunciation and are then set aside.” (2014: vii) Occasional transnationalism is thus an alternative mode of encounter in which none of the parties involved takes any kind of action, but uses the image of the other as an essential part of a poetics of recognition. In transnational translation, the poetics of recognition plays an at least equally important role: the translation of the other makes certain immediate and private possibilities more likely and intimation of prospective gains through literary barters becomes a much more enticing goal than ‘simple’ cultural cross-fertilization. Unlike occasional transnationalism, what I call ‘in-kind transnationalism’ is very much based on a theory of social action that draws on motives, ends, purposes, and means. After the 1993 anthology assembled by Ciorănescu, another anthology will appear only in 2006. Locul nimănui. Antologie de poezie americană contemporană. 36 de poeți americani contemporani (Naming the Nameless. An Anthology of Contemporary American Poetry. 36 Contemporary American Poets), a project managed and coordinated by New York City-based Carmen Firan and Paul Doru Mugur, was part of a publishing agreement between an American press, 152 In an interview Nina Cassian recounts how her work as an author of children’s tales was not included in a workshop on children’s literature that took place after the revolution, in 1991. When she asked the organizer why that happened, the answer was: “Well, you were not [in the country].” (2010. “Nina Cassian: Nu mă plâng. Am iubit și am fost iubită,” Web: http://bit.ly/2AW282e. Last accessed: January 13, 2018) http://bit.ly/2AW282e 158 Talisman House Publishers, and a Romanian one, Cartea Românească. According to this agreement, two anthologies, one of American poetry, and one of Romanian poetry153 were to be published concomitantly in the two countries. Firan—also a former program director at the Romanian Cultural Institute in New York, and Mugur—doctor and writer—were the Romanian coordinators of the two projects; they commissioned a team of Romanian translators who most lived, at least at that time, in North America: Adrian Sângeorzan and Liviu Georgescu—both poets and physicians living in the New Jersey area; Ileana Orlich—professor of Romanian and English at the Arizona State University; Sanda Agalidi—a long-time Romanian émigré who co-edited, together with Julian Semilian, the first translation into English of Paul Celan’s Romanian Poems154; and Alina Savin—a translator residing in New Zealand, who also worked on the Romanian renditions of Henri Béhar’s monograph155 on Tristan Tzara. Although two institutions were involved in these projects, it is not clear who was the initiator, but they may have both originated in the network Firan developed during her tenure at the Romanian Cultural Institute. What is of interest here is the extent to which she was personally involved in the creation and circulation of the book and what kind of relationships this anthology prompted. Firan states in interviews that Mugur and herself did more than coordinate the publication, as they were equally involved in the promotion and distribution of the books (Zubașcu 2008: web). Moreover, neither the Romanian anthology nor the American one benefitted from financial support from the Romanian Cultural Institute in New York: in a public statement156 released 153 ***. 2006. Born in Utopia. An Anthology of Modern & Contemporary Poetry. Jersey City, NJ: Talisman House Publishers. 154 Celan, Paul. Romanian Poems (Julian Semilian and Sanda Agalidi, Eds., Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: Green Integer Books, 100 p. 155 Béhar, Henri. 2005. Tristan Tzara (Alina Savin, Trans.). Iași: Junimea. 156 ***. 2007. “Tapiserii și foi întoarse.” In Revista 22, March 02. Web: http://bit.ly/2rclnFd. Last accessed: January 14, 2018. http://bit.ly/2rclnFd 159 in 2007 the officials listed the Romanian translation among the projects that received only support for its promotion. The selection of the pieces to be included in the anthology was made by two American poets, also based in New York City, whose own work is among the pieces selected: Edward Foster, professor of creative writing and director of Talisman House Publishers, and Leonard Schwartz, host of the Cross Cultural Poetics radio show and editor of a volume of selected poems in English translation157 by Romanian iconic avant-garde poet Benjamin Fondane. The rationale behind the selection of authors is clearly explained from the get-go: “to present voices that are original, strong (and sometime unconventional or „politically incorrect”) and that defy the prejudices the industry of fame and prizes in such a vast and varied culture such as the American one.” (2006: 5) However ambitious the objective, the anthology received very little attention in Romania. Poet Claudiu Komartin very briefly mentions it on his blog as “a flimsy book” that makes you think “there’s something really off about American poets,” (2011: web) while others cannot seem to decide whether the book is “a defective success [or] a generous failure.” (Ștefan 2008: web) Firan herself admits in an interview that many of the authors included in the anthology published in Romania gave her quite a few literary “headaches.” (Zubașcu id.) The whole project seems to have the air of a ‘family affair’ for Carmen Firan, a Romanian poet and translator turned hypnotherapist in New York City since 2002 (id.), for which she rewarded the American collaborators with further translations into Romanian of their work: poetry 157 Cinepoems and Others (New York Review of Books, 2016). 160 selections158 of Andrei Codrescu—who wrote one of the blurbs for the anthology159—and of Edward Foster—the project’s editor and publisher—appear in 2008 in Scrisul românesc, a Romanian literary journal in the southern city of Craiova managed by her own father, Florea Firan. As a matter of fact, much of Firan’s publishing activity in Romanian revolves around this journal and its affiliated press. It is there that she publishes a selection of Stanley Moss’s poetry160, alongside the translation of the same by her close friend, Nina Cassian. Furthermore, other American writers with whom Firan has been collaborating since her arrival in the United States get to travel to Romania and be translated and published there in bilingual volumes. This is the case of Richard Milazzo,161 Edward Foster,162 and Edward Hirsch.163 The latter had published in 2011 the volume titled Romanian Writers on Writing, edited with emigré-writer Norman Manea (Trinity University Press, 2011), and traveled to Romania on the occasion of his own book in translation being launched at the International Literary Festival in Iași in 2014. There he sealed another translation agreement, this time with mainstream Polirom Press, for a different poetry volume, Focul viu. Poeme vechi și noi (The Living Fire. New and Selected Poems),164 and with the Al. I. Cuza University Press for a volume of prose,165 co-translated by American literature professors Radu Andriescu and Dana Bădulescu. Besides these poetry 158 Codrescu, Andrei. 2008. “Vizitatori din lumea dansului” (Alexandra Carides and Carmen Firan, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 5: 25; Foster, Edward. 2008. “Cei care strang bani pentru tine; A fost El vreodată acolo?; Bărbatul plin de rouă” (Carmen Firan, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 9: 16. 159 The relationship between Firan and Codrescu cannot be reduced to these exchanges. In 2005, Scrisul românesc Press had published Codrescu’s only poetry collection ever written in Romanian—Instrumentul negru. Poezii, 1965-1968— part of a series of concerted efforts by Romanian writers to bring his work back in his home culture. 160 Moss, Stanley. 2009. “Ascultând apa.” (Carmen Firan, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 6: 17. 161 Milazzo, Richard. 2010. Umbre din Est/Eastern Shadows (Adrian Sângeorzan, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc; Milazzo, Richard. 2012. Acolo unde îngerii îşi arcuiesc spatele şi câinii sunt în trecere/Where Angels Arch Their Backs and Dogs Pass Through (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc. 162 Foster, Edward. 2009. Febra albă. Poeme alese (Alexandra Carides and Carmen Firan, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc. 163 Hirsch, Edward. 2014. Nocturnal Fire. Poems /Foc nocturn. Poeme (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc. 164 Hirsch, Edward. 2017. Focul viu. Poeme vechi și noi. 1975-2010 (Bogdan-Alexandru Stănescu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. 165 Hirsch, Edward. 2015. Cum să citeşti un poem şi să te îndrăgosteşti de poezie (Dana Bădulescu and Radu Andriescu, Trans.). Iași: Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. 161 translations in book form, many journal selections were contributed by people affiliated with Scrisul românesc: Răzvan Hotăranu, Carmen Firan’s son and a car dealer in New York City, translated various poems by Ralph Angel,166 Joy Manesiotis,167 Dave Brinks,168 Barbara Ras,169 and Andrey Gritsman.170 Gritsman, a Russian poet and translator who works as a physician in the New York City area, had a poetry book of his own translated into Romanian171 by Firan’s step-daughter, Doris Sângeorzan, in 2004, and consequently collaborated with Firan on an anthology of American poets of recent foreign extraction172 in 2008. Gritsman is also the founder of the online poetry journal Interpoezia, where Firan collaborates as an international editor, as well as the initiator and patron of the International Poetry Reading Series at the popular Cornelia Street Café in New York City, which hosts periodic readings featuring Firan. Going back to Scrisul românesc, the journal hosts further selections from Hirsch173 and Milazzo,174 translated by Hotăranu; Alexandra Carides—an oncologist and a translator based in 166 Angel, Ralph. 2010. “Testat aici pe pământ; Ştergere; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 8 (2): 15; Angel, Ralph. 2015. “Natură; Conversaţie; Nici sângele; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 13 (4): 19. 167 Manesiotis, Joy. 2010. “Lamentare: “Moirologia”; Corbul; Băiat frumos” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 8 (3): 16-17. 168 Brinks, Dave. 2010. “A merge înapoi la apă; Concert în nouă fragmente, Andante; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 8 (4): 16. 169 Ras, Barbara. 2012. “Ultima piele; Cântec; Acum toate temerile; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (8): 17. 170 Gritsman, Andrey. 2014. “Liceul Hudson; Lac; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 12(4): 16. 171 Gritsman, Andrey. 2004. In Transit (Doris Sângeorzan, Trans.). Craiova: Scrisul românesc. 172 ***. 2008. Stranger at Home. American Poetry with an Accent (Andrey Gritsman, Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Numina Press. 173 Hirsch, Edward. 2012. “Noapte transfigurată, vino jos la mine, încet; Incertitudine; În amintirea lui Paul Celan; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (5): 19; Hirsch, Edward. 2013. “Colette; Voi începe să trăiesc ca un mistic; Din Manuscrisele Dorinţei Propoziţia; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 11 (8): 19; Hirsch, Edward. 2014. “Cititorul; Ne-a surprins vara; Solstiţiu; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 12 (6): 28. 174 Milazzo, Richard. 2012. “Umbra inimii; Acea parte ascunsă; Mormântul lui Humayun; etc.” (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 10 (7): 16. 162 Philadelphia—translates more Milazzo,175 alongside Elinor Nauen,176 and Robert Harshon.177 These are only a few examples of a literary trade between Romania and New York that has been taking place ever since Carmen Firan emigrated in 2000,178 a fact confirmed by her father in an interview: I need to emphasize the impulse and the help received from Carmen Firan and Adrian Sângeorzan: not only through the publication of their own work in our journal and with our press, but also by their commissioning American writers or Romanian writers in America, […] a cultural bridge that has been in place for over 12 years. (Jianu 2014: web) This cultural bridge appears to be essential for the sometimes dusty Craiova-based journal: in a review run by the parent literary association, a contributor criticizes the conformism and provincialism of the content and says that the only chance of the readers at quality content is to look for the Americans, concluding that the Americans are indeed present (Cronicar 2007: web). The translators and authors revolving around Scrisul românesc are generally placed well in the transnational graph: fourth in terms of betweeness centrality (R. Hotaranu, bc = 0.0663, rank 4), but lower in terms of closeness and EigenVector values. That shows us they actually owe their ranking to other nodes in the network, notably Ioana Ieronim—through her translation of A. Gritsman, also translated by R. Hotăranu), as well as because of her translation of M. Woodside, which connects her to C. Tanasescu, the highest placed in terms of centrality and with the highest average degree in the whole translation network. Ieronim’s connection to C. Tanasescu and the co- translation done by Nina Cassian with C. Firan are the links which confer the network its 175 Milazzo, Richard. 2014. “Vâltorile din Kerala; Palatul Sultanului în Bangalore etc.” (Alexandra Carides, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 12 (4): 15. 176 Nauen, Elinor. 2008. “Transfigurare; Urale pentru Poezie; Curaj din nimic: etc.” (Alexandra Carides, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 6 (1): 16. 177 Hershon, Robert. 2008. “Costumul de pui; Istorie prin lipsă; Măsline; etc.” (Alexandra Carides, Trans.). In Scrisul românesc 6 (5): 24. 178 The exact date of her relocation is not clear: either sometime in the late 1990s or in 2000. 163 connectedness: had these links not been present, the Scrisul românesc clique179 would have been disconnected. Another example of a Romanian-born writer who lives abroad and translated U.S. and Canadian poets into Romanian is Flavia Cosma. Now a Canadian citizen based in Toronto and a patron of the arts running a literary residence in Val David (Quebec), Cosma translated acclaimed Parliamentary Poet Laureate George Elliott Clarke’s Selected Poems180 in 2006, followed by selections from the work of Gloria Mindock181 (Poet Laureate of Sommerville, Massachusetts), Dae- Tong Huh (Korea-born Canadian poet),182 and Jim Heavily (poet and poetry editor of Los Angeles- based online literary journal www.hinchasdepoesia.com).183 It might be that these eclectic projects were fuelled both by her personal literary taste and by her various collaborations with the poets she translates: Mindock is, for instance, the founding editor of Cervena Barva, the press that published two of Cosma’s poetry volumes184 and for which Cosma is, according to her own website, an international editor; Jim Heavily, whom I almost gave up trying to locate, turns out to be the editor who published one of Cosma’s poems185 in the Romanian original and in Spanish translation the very year when a selection of his own poems appear in Romania); finally, her literary barter with poet Dae-Tong Huh becomes apparent in the publication of one of her books of children’s 179 Clique in graph theory is a basic term referring to a subset of vertices of an undirected graph such that every two distinct vertices in the clique are adjacent. I have used it in this context to emphasize the tightly-knit network that revolves around Scrisul românesc. 180 Clarke, George Elliott. 2006. Poeme incendiare (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). Oradea: Cogito. 181 Mindock, Gloria. 2010. La portile raiului (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). Iași: Ars Longa Press. 182 Cosma, Flavia. 2007. “Murmurs of Voices / Murmure des voix / Murmurul Vocilor.” (Flavia Cosma, Trans.) Oradea: Cogito. 183 Heavily, Jim. 2012. “Au trecut cinci ani deja...; El Pais (Ţara); Strada morţilor; etc.” (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). In Vatra veche 4 (6): 69. 184 Cosma, Flavia. 2008. The Season of Love. Somerville, MA: Cervena Barva Press, 89 pages; Cosma Flavia. 2007. Gothic Calligraphy. Somerville, MA: Cervena Barva Press. 185 Cosma, Flavia. 2012. “Man’s Iron Hand; La mano de hierro del hombre.” (Luis Raúl Calvo, Trans.) In Hinchas de Poesia 7/2012. Web: http://bit.ly/2A9LsUM. http://bit.ly/2A9LsUM 164 literature186 with Korean-Canadian Literary Forum-21 Press. Even her translation of Clarke’s work— which marked her debut as a translator—appears to be, according to one of the very few reviews done in Romania, the result of literary gratitude that adds to a not so apparent, yet plausible, degree of literary kinship: This [translation] cannot be only an elegant gesture out of her gratitute for the enthusiastic forewords he wrote to her own poetry books. I would feel inclined to think this is a reading experience that touched the poet’s receptiveness, hardened by her harsh destiny and her own sense of displacement. This is the source of her openness to acute existential problems, her understanding and compassion. We get a glimpse [in this translation] of a Flavia Cosma that speaks about Human Rights to Canadian students, the TV producer that documented homelessness in Toronto or the orphans in her home country [...]. In all these, she resonates with George Elliott’s Clarke’s militant social activism. (Oloș 2007: web) Just like the poets she translates (with the notable exception of Clarke), her translation projects stay very regional: the books are published with very small, provincial presses, either in her home town, Oradea, or in Iași, and the poetry selections generally appear in literary journals that are very regional (e.g., Vatra Veche from Târgu Mureș, Citadela from Satu Mare, both cities in north-western Romania). What seems to connect these publishers and journals, though, is the “Lucian Blaga” International Festival in Sebeș, another small city in Transylvania, where Cosma was awarded in 2009 the “Title of Excellence for Outstanding Contribution to the Promotion and Enrichment of the Romanian Culture within the European Region and throughout the World.” From one of the two reviews of her translation of Clarke to date it is clear that the Canadian poet had visited Romania prior to the launch of his 2006 book, on the occasion of another literary happening in Satu Mare, Zilele Poesis (Pop 2007). After his return in 2006 for the launch of his translated poem collection, 186 Cosma, Flavia. 2007. The Adventures of Tommy Teddy Bear and Alex Little Bunny. Toronto: Korean-Canadian Literary Forum-21 Press. 165 various further selections by other translators appear in a number of literary magazines: two translations by Canadian Studies specialist Ana Oloș,187 who also favorably reviewed Cosma’s rendition and dedicated a more in-depth academic study to Clarke’s work (Oloș 2012), and other two by Diana Manole,188 a Toronto-based writer, director, and scholar specialized in Drama Studies. While Oloș’s 2008 translation followed Clarke’s 2006 lecture at the Nord University, her home institution, and an award he received from the local literary journal, Poesis, her 2013 translation and Manole’s translation the very same year may be a reflection of Clarke’s appointment as the Toronto Poet Laureate at the beginning of 2012. It may also be a natural development of a series of encounters between Cosma, Clarke, and Manole. This network also prompts a substantial interview in the Transilvania literary journal (Oloș ibid.) by Oloș and Crina Bud, lecturer at the Romanian Lectorate with York University, in Toronto. G.E. Clarke is the central node of the clique formed by translators F. Cosma, A. Oloș, and D. Manole and ranks immediately after the authors and translators around C. Tanasescu and R. Hotăranu, as the most prominent node in G3 in terms of betweeness centrality. His prominence is given by the three translators associated with him. As far as the other two centrality measurements are concerned, Clarke ranks fairly low, just like the other nodes in this sub-network, because the component he belongs in is disconnected. The frequency of the translations in Clarke’s case shows us that his literary stardom only intensified the series of translations already initiated by Cosma as both literary barter and literary 187 Clarke, George Elliott. 2008. “Biserica baptistă africană din Cherrzbrook; Ecleziastul; Sonet alb: etc.” (Ana Olos, Trans.) In Poesis 3-5: 98; Clarke, George Elliott. 2013. “Către guvernul din Nova Scoția; Viață de albină; etc.” (Ana Oloș, Trans.) In Nord literar 7-8: 122-123. 188 Clarke, George Elliot. 2013. “Unghi; Sextina: aprilie; II.iii. Elegie albastră; etc.” (Diana Manole, Trans.). In Viaţa românească 7-8: 226-230; Clarke, George Elliott. 2013. “Păcătoşi sfinţi; Strigăt din piaţa haligoniană; Copilărie II: etc.” (Diana Manole, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă 7: 14. 166 affiliation. Cosma’s interest in charity and immigrants’ sense of displacement must have felt at home, I would suggest, in Clarke’s literary work, while the Canadian poet might have appreciated Cosma’s poetry, as a note on her website states that one of her volumes, Leaves of a Diary, was studied in Clarke’s literature class at the University of Toronto during the 2007-2008 academic year. Similarly, Manole, who holds a doctorate from the same University of Toronto, was perhaps familiar with Clarke’s interest in the loss of a sense of belonging, which resonated with Manole’s own interest in foreign/immigrant notes in theater and performance. Her pairing Clarke with Ede Amatoritsero189 in the translation feature dedicated to African-Canadian writers—another illustration of network-driven translation—likely influenced the roster of attendees in and the idea behind an event titled “Shared Dreams of Freedom,” organized by the Romanian Consulate in Toronto in January 2014. The event was held as part of Romania’s National Cultural Day and the anniversary of iconic early Modernist Mihai Eminescu—Romania’s national poet—and Martin Luther King, Jr. Such exchanges offer a vista foregrounded in an economy of literary barters, characterized by in-kind exchanges that energize the dialogue between contemporary poets and their translators. With the fallout of the 2008 recession still lingering in a country in which poetry is published in print runs equal to those in the United States, but does not sell, an exchange economy goes off well. Translation becomes more and more a benefit in-kind and generates new kinds of partnerships, events, and literary associations that not only maintain and strengthen networks, but also extend them. The interpersonal relationships that result from and create these exchanges are salient and their multifarious nature occasions new roles for translators. As Jones rightfully notes, “translators 189 Ede, Amatoritsero. 2013. “Poems.” (Diana Manole, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă 7: 14. 167 often carry less power in a production network than an anthology/journal editor or a living source poet.” (2009: 301) This is precisely why poet-translators take on new challenges and assume new roles in the production chain. The gain is so much the more substantial if the services they render in their home culture are mirrored in the source culture by services benefiting their own work. Transnational poet-translators do not play a twin role (Jones ibid.), but a triple one: besides being converters of a text and representatives of a source-language culture or poet, they are also particularly effective publishing facilitators. The downsides of this new reality is the localism of many translation projects, as an exchange economy does not always involve major players on the book market. However, as Edward Foster notes in the presentation of Naming the Nameless, “even the most modest of attempts that may look like no more than tiny drops in the ocean are still to be preferred to laments and complexes, myths, and prejudices.” (Foster 2007: 7) A progenerative model concerned with the dynamics of real-world relationships and backed by a politics of fecundity is to be preferred, I suggest, to sparse major-league translation phenomena. 2.2.4. Literary Kinship, Scholarly Work, and Academic Mobility If the above examples revolve around certain literary journals and affiliated presses and seem to be grounded in a barter logic, the next examples were fueled by three different factors, namely literary kinship, scholarly research, and academic mobility. Translators’ literary kinship to the authors they translate has been largely ignored by TS literature and typically discussed in relation with translational poetics (Simon 2007; Médici Nóbrega and Milton 2009; Bradford 2009; Jacobs 2014; Galvin 2014). Scholarship and poetry translation have been specifically researched by scholar Josephine Balmer (2013), who shrewdly notes there is a symbiosis between academic research and 168 classical poetry translation which often leads to poetry production on the part of the translator. In the context of contemporary poetry translation, academic mobility is often the trigger of such projects, hence the associations of the two in the title of the present subchapter. In addition, I present projects that have occurred as a result of academic mobility, but which have not been backed by literary affinities or by the translators’ poetic appropriation. The Romanian translator whose work and trajectory is very much in line with a transnational paradigm and a progenerative model is Chris Tanasescu, who ranks first in the transnational graphs in all categories. Tanasescu was working towards a Ph.D. in American poetry in 2007, writing a thesis on rock “poetry,”190 a category in which he included mainstream poetry informed by rock music, lyrics, or culture, when he came across a long poem of David Baker’s (Holler 2010), “Sweet Home, Saturday Night,” the title poem of a collection from 1991. In it, the speaker tells the story of a rock concert he gave as a guitarist in a band playing in a pub somewhere in the Southern US. The Romanian translator was intrigued by the alternation of scenes from the show and the night bar ‘crazy life,’ classic rock lyrics, personal musings and lyric fragments, and excerpts of literary and cultural criticism, all fused in a polyphonic and alert discourse. He felt closely related to such an approach, as his own poetry was informed by notions of performance, polyphony, and multiple cross-boundary discourse, and after looking deeper into Baker’s work he decided to write the American poet and translate some of his poetry. One year earlier, Tanasescu had published a collection in which he experimented with syllabic verse (a meter never employed in Romanian poetry since its late medieval and early modern periods) and camouflaging ‘classic’ forms, such as sonnets and ottava rimas, under heterogeneous dictions and nonconventional typography (Gulea 190 Tanasescu, Chris. 2008. Popular Culture and Border Transgression in Contemporary American Poetry. The Case of Rock Poetry. Bucharest: University of Bucharest. 169 2010). He discovered in Baker a master of syllabic verse, and, if not an experimental, then an extremely subtle ‘translator’ of classic forms into new contexts and discourses. Besides discovering a great poet that shared some of his topics—along with and maybe more significantly than rock culture, the poetry of place, environment, and landscape which somewhat matched Tanasescu’s rather urban topologies—he discovered in Baker a famous advocate of poetic options that the translator thought crucial in revitalizing the poetry written by the poets that were emerging in Romania in the two decades after 1989. In November 2009, Tanasescu published a volume191 of Baker’s Selected Poems in Romanian translation—preceded by a selection published in Viața românească192 and further selections in Convorbiri literare193 in 2010. He also applied, through the Margento Foundation, for a grant with the U.S. Department of State to bring the poet to Romania for a series of book launches. In an interview, Baker recounts of himself: [It was a] completely random thing, Mr. Baker says of that experience. This fellow, maybe two, two and a half years ago, emailed me. Chris Tanasescu, who is a Romanian poet at the University of Bucharest, had come across a poem of mine and wanted to translate it for a magazine. And he just kept going and about a year ago said that he would like to put together a ‘selected poems’ from all my books and show it to a publisher. He did, the publisher took it, the book was published [in November 2009] and I went over for the launch. I’d never been there, I know two words of Romanian, but I’d apparently written a book called Omul Alchimic and had an amazing time. (Holler 2010: web, emphasis mine) This random act of translation occasioned a chain of other projects that furthered the long-standing relationship between U.S. and Romanian cultures. In 2012, inspired by his Romanian tour, David Baker initiated a translation experiment194 dedicated to his Romanian translator (“To Chris, who 191 Baker, David. 2009. Omul alchimic (The Alchemical Man) (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). Bucharest: Vinea Press. 192 Baker, David. 2009. “Omul postum.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Viața românească 8-9. Web: http://bit.ly/2Ddr3kx. Last accessed: January 10, 2018. 193 Baker, David. 2010. “Romantism; Piatra lui Simonide; etc.” (Chris Tănăsescu, Trans.). In Convorbiri literare 5: 101- 102. 194 Baker, David. 2012. Hunger to Hunger: Hungry / Foame. (Tanasescu et al., Trans,). Toledo, OH: Aureole Press. http://bit.ly/2Ddr3kx 170 opened the door”), which is to be considered a literary barter for Tanasescu. Baker departed from Tanasescu’s translation of his poem “Hungry” and submitted the Romanian “Foame” to a process of back-translation and re-translation between Romanian and English for a total of fourteen times. The introduction describes the translator team as a network of acquaintances of the author and the translator and spells out author’s hope that “each iteration would be a coherent poem on its own merit.” (Baker 2012: web) The translators’ dialogue, a sort of literary telephone game (as one of the translators put it), bore no translation limitations and resulted in a whole new poem in English, which contained only those parts (syllables or whole words) of the original text that still existed in the last English translation. Baker’s final poem was the embodiment of Tanasescu’s tenet that a good translatable poem is always “transmutational and communal.” (2010: web). Ramifications of Tanasescu’s translation of Baker’s poetry into Romanian led to the participation of the American poet in the International Poetry Festival in Sibiu in 2014 and in a translation into English and publication in the Kenyon Review of a poem195 by the organizer, poet Radu Vancu, and by other participants in the festival. While searching the internet for young American poets to write about196 and translate, Tanasescu came across the poetry of Ilya Kaminsky. A Jewish-Russian poet who emigrated from Odessa at the age of 16, when his family fled a war going on at the time in neighboring Moldova and who came from a region and had a background so relevant to the Romanian translator. Moreover, Kaminsky’s energetically painful and rabbinically musical lyricism appealed to Tanasescu for its genuine fusion of the most privately subjective and the traditional, the latter involving both a 195 Vancu, Radu. 2016. “[What’s One of Your Dead Telling You]” (Tara Skurtu and Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Kenyon Review 38 (2). Web: http://bit.ly/2mGlWmb. Last accessed: January 14, 2018. 196 The research resulted in a scholarly paper: “The New Taste of Old Taste: Manifestos by 31 Younger U.S. Poets in 2005”, published in The University of Bucharest Review (“A Matter of Taste”) 7 (4). Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press. Web: http://bit.ly/2DaZkUf. Last accessed: January 14, 2018. http://bit.ly/2mGlWmb http://bit.ly/2DaZkUf 171 mythologized and yet tragic history of Odessa (and actually Eastern Europe) and deep immersions in the works and biographies of Russian classic modernists like Mandelstam and Akhmatova. Tanasescu’s choice seems to have been right, as the translation was met with great interest and even enthusiasm by many young poets, and both the book and the poet are still greatly admired in Romania ten years after the publication.197 When he arrived in San Diego, California, on a Senior Fulbright Award hosted by the department where Ilya Kaminsky was a member, Tanasescu met Rothenberg, a legendary figure whose work he had admired, taught, and written about.198 Being directly in touch with the remarkably personable master allowed the younger poet to observe two complementary aspects of the former’s personality and approach—one, Rothenberg’s amplitude and complexity was indeed amazing, as grounded in an ongoing impatience to learn about poetries and cultures that could never be too (or rather enough) strange or uncanny, and, two, his ([de]constructed) indebtedness to Romanian iconic figures like Tristan Tzara and Mircea Eliade. Under the circumstances, it was fascinating for Tanasescu and his co-translator to render in Romanian199 the way in which one of the most internationalist and eclectic poets in the world spent an impressive part of his creative energy dialoging with master figures of the Romanian culture and recuperating the historical and cultural experience of his ancestors, while at the same time opening the door of his poetry to localisms and untranslatable traditions from all corners of the world (Tanasescu 2013: 184-185). 197 Kaminsky, Ilya. 2007. Dansând în Odessa (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). Bucharest: Vinea Press. 198 Chris, Tanasescu. 2007. “The Shadowy (Non-)Identity of the Shaman in Contemporary U.S. Poetry: Jim Morrison, Gary Snyder, and Jerome Rothenberg”. In The University of Bucharest Review (“Identity and Alterity: Geographies of the Mind”) 9 (4). Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press, pp: 108-117. Web: http://bit.ly/2DaZkUf. Last accessed: January 18, 2018. 199 Rothenberg, Jerome. 2013. Mistici, hoți și nebuni (Mystics, Thieves, and Madmen) (Chris and Raluca Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans.). Bistrița: Max Blecher Press. http://bit.ly/2DaZkUf 172 Selections appeared in Poezia in 2011200 and 2012,201 then in Poesis International in 2013 (cf. section 2.1 and Annex 1), just before the publication of his Selected Poems in Romanian. More than is the case with other Romanian poet-translators, Tanasescu’s own poetic work reveals his use of translation as a generative and creative act, “an integrative and restitutive gesture, a non-linear act of language.” (Mironescu 2013) One of the features that characterise his poetry is an unmasked, playful and transgressive translational poetics which “affirms [his] ethnic and linguistic identity even more thoroughly by a ‘live’ dialogue with the other [poets].” (Patraș 2010: web) As Patraș rightfully notes, his poems engage in a dialogue—a jam-session—with the poetry of many of the authors he translates, from Baker to Kaminsky to Woodside or Starzinger, “in a universal language of poetry and mathematics, which is essentially musical” (id.), making Patraș compare him with John Ashbery. Patraș was certainly not mistaken in tracing the literary lineage. Such as is the case with transnational literary contamination, which “reveals concerns about the development of innovative domestic poetics,” (Galvin 2014) Tanasescu had indeed translated Ashbery202, motivated by the desire to challenge and redesign contemporary literary fashions in native Romania. The networks established in real life move into the poem of the self-dubbed ‘(trans)nationalist poet’ who “translates foreigners into Romanian and Romanian into the languages and mentality of the new Rome” (Nicolau 2011: web) accompanied by ‘a band of translators’ (id.). His band of translators grows with every worthy poet he meets and, as Woodside notes, is a reflection of his… passport (2014): this is how he gets to translate John Taylor,203 whom he met in Paris, or Page Hill 200 Rothenberg, Jerome. 2011. “Călătoria de la o vară la alta; Spania lui Lorca: Omagiu; etc.” (Raluca and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poezia 16 (2): 134-141. 201 Rothenberg, Jerome. 2012. “Bunavestire (de Marpa); Polonia/1931; Satan în Goray: etc.” (Raluca and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). In Poezia 17 (2): 147-157. 202 Ashbery, John. 2010. “Azi-noapte am visat că eram în Bucureşti; Istoria vieţii mele; Calea de ieşire binecuvântată; etc.” (Chris Tănăsescu, Trans) In Viaţa românească 5-6: 174-177. 203 Taylor, John. 2013. “Din Tapiseriile Apocalipsei.” (Raluca and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Ateneu 11-12: 32. 173 Starzinger204, whom he met in Romania, alongside other writers like Meghan O’Rourke205, Roger Craik206, or D.A. Powell207—young poets who may prove relevant to their Romanian peers. Furthermore, what Marjorie Perloff would call ‘uncreative writing’—“poetry that is entirely “unoriginal” and nevertheless qualifies as poetry” (Perloff 2010: 8)—is further networked by Tanasescu in a series of assemblages he defines as “graph poems”: “an ongoing communal […] poetry project that involves poets and writers from various parts of the world collaborating by the principles of mathematical graph theory and in the spirit of jam sessions.” (Tanasescu 2011: web) As noted by Nicolau, translation is not only vital for the poetic dialogue, but also makes possible the live connection of poems and people, in a transnational poetics in which “diverse poets launch lines of creation and others develop and multiply them.” (2014: 319) The diasporic condition of the poet and the network he builds around and in his poetry invite multiple ways of translation within the same volume: from translating other poets’ work and engaging in a dialogue with them to self- translation and inviting other poets to translate his own poems. At the end, all become translators and play in “a global, multi-language, powerful performance troupe,” (Baker 2014), “an international coalition of writers and translators.” (Woodside 2014: web) The type of relationships C. Tanasescu establishes within the transnational network has an influence not only on the writers and translators associated with him, but also on other nodes. For instance, because of his co-translations with R. Tanasescu and M. Surleac, the latter two are placed second and third in network-influence (EigenVector), although they score much lower in the other two centrality measurements. Not only do these co-translators fare well, but so do the authors they 204 Starzinger, Page Hill. 2010. “Seria 22; Contracurent; Eucharist Nervosa.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Familia 11-12: 217-221. 205 O’Rourke, Meghan. 2007. “Poeme de Meghan O’Rourke.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). In Familia 11-12: 283-287. 206 Craik, Roger. 2007. “Poeme de Roger Craik.” (Chris Tănăsescu, Trans.). In Familia 11-12: 278-282. 207 Powell, D. A. 2010. “Floare stranie-n mâinile mele.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Familia 5: 123-125. 174 co-translated (such as G. Snyder and F. Joudah), who score higher in EigenVector centrality compared to the authors translated by C. Tanasescu alone (such as J. Rothenberg or Baker, who were even published more than once in periodicals). Even more interesting is the fact that the best placed translator after C.Tanasescu (bc = 0.1575) is I. Ieronim (bc = 0.0772), a rank she owes to her translation of M. Woodside. This re-translation of Woodside one year after the one by Tanasescu makes the author rank second in closeness centrality and third in betweenness centrality, becoming better positioned, thus more visible topologically than authors like J. Ashbery, for instance. Tanasescu’s influence on the network is most clearly expressed by the EigenVector, which ranks the authors he translated better than any other authors in the transnational network. Poetry translation as complement to scholarly research has a strong representative in Rodica Grigore’s work, the main node in the G1 component (cf. Annex 3). A senior lecturer in Comparative Literature at the Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Grigore translated Margaret Atwood208 following an essay209 inspired by her work in 2010, a literary analysis applied to the Romanian translation of Atwood’s novel210 in 2008. Grigore’s translation of Michael Ondaatje’s poetry211 is followed a year later by an essay212 dedicated to his poetic work. She also translates selections from the writings of Paul Auster213, a selection preceded and followed by at least two scholarly articles.214 Her translation 208 Atwood, Margaret. 2012. “Să zbori înăuntrul propriului tău trup; Cântec de sirenă; Clipa” (Rodica Grigore, Trans.) In Euphorion 23 (7-8): 17. 209 Grigore. Rodica. 2010. “Spațiul literar și tradiția discursului distopic. Margaret Atwood, Oryx și Crake.” In Revista Transilvania 2. Web: http://bit.ly/2mB7L0Q. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. 210 Atwood, Margaret. 2008. Oryx şi Crake (Florin Irimia, Trans.). Editura Leda, Bucureşti. 211 Ondaatje, Michael. 2009. “Culegătorul de scorţişoară; Coasta medievală; La un strigăt depărtare; etc.” (Rodica Grigore, Trans.) In Contemporanul - ideea europeană 20 (8): 34-35. 212 Grigore, Rodica. 2010. “Dincolo de graniţe cu Michael Ondaatje.” In Ziarul financiar June 25. Web: http://bit.ly/2mNtP9t. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. 213 Auster, Paul. 2008. “Credo (Infinitul); Printre rânduri; Corală; etc.” (Rodica Grigore, Trans.) In Euphorion 19 (5-6): 20. 214 Grigore, Rodica. 2007. “Paul Auster. Călătoriile noului personaj picaresc.” In Revista Cultura 94. Web: http://bit.ly/2DbVHKt. Last accessed: January 16, 2018; Grigore, Rodica. 2010. “O călătorie la capătul singurătății.” In Ziarul financiar November 11. Web: http://bit.ly/2DnqoiY. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. http://bit.ly/2mB7L0Q http://bit.ly/2mNtP9t http://bit.ly/2DbVHKt http://bit.ly/2DnqoiY 175 of Ted Berrigan215 seems to be related rather to her work on Andrei Codrescu, the Romanian-born American poet that is difficult to pin down because of his affinities with numerous other writers, among whom Berrigan and other New York School poets—very often mentioned in her scholarly essays216 on Codrescu. Finally, Grigore’s selection of Elaine Equi’s work217 appears to be an isolated occurrence, not doubled by any scholarly work. However, Equi’s interest in Frank O’Hara, the iconic poet of the New York School, seems to be the red thread that guided this translation choice. Grigore’s translator notes are very informed and analytical and focus more on the themes and literary quality of the translated work than on the author’s biography and literary recognitions. She generally prefers literary criticism and scholarly essays published in mainstream literary or scholarly journals—venues that further legitimize the scholarly nature of her pieces. A dedicated follower of the literary translation scene in Romania, she devoted at least two reviews218 to the translation of T.S. Eliot’s poetry in 2012. Grigore’s example is not singular. Elena Ciobanu (G2 cf. Annex 3) is a professor of British and American poetry at the University of Bacau in North-East Romania. Her list of selected academic papers shows an overt interest in the poetry of Sylvia Plath whose Selected Poetry she translates in a volume219 and publishes with Paralela 45 Press in 2012. Her research interest in contemporary poetry results in further sporadic selections from T.S. Eliot220 and Canadian Jeramy Dodds,221 hosted 215 Berrigan, Ted. 2011. “Frank O'Hara; Dragoste; Oameni din viitor; etc.” (Rodica Grigore, Trans.) In Contemporanul - ideea europeană. 22 (1): 30. 216 One of the many references to Berrigan and Codrescu appears in Grigore’s book on the evolution of Romanian literary forms: Evoluția formelor românești (Cluj-Napoca: Casa cărții de știință). 217 Equi, Elaine. 2011. “Vampirela; Fată vinerea; Pentru Hollis Sigler; etc.” (Rodica Grigore, Trans.) In Contemporanul - ideea europeană 22 (10): 39. 218 Grigore, Rodica. 2012. “T.S. Eliot. Tărîmul poeziei: recenzie la Opere poetice (1909-1962), traducere de Şerban Foarţă. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2011”. In Observator cultural 350: 16-17; Grigore, Rodica. 2012. “T. S. Eliot. Ambiguitate, detaşare, poezie: despre vol. Opere poetice (1909-1062), traducere de Şerban Foarţă.” In Vatra 6-7: 68-73. 219 Plath, Sylvia. 2012. Selected Poems / Poeme alese. (Elena Ciobanu, Trans., Foreword.) Piteşti: Paralela 45. 220 Eliot, T.S. 2012. “Cântecul de dragoste al lui J. Alfred Prufrock.” (Elena Ciobanu, Trans.) In Ateneu 4: 24. 221 Dodds, Jeramy. 2011. “Inima uscata; Leii saptamânii lucratoare.” (Elena Ciobanu, Trans.) In Ateneu 4: 24. 176 exclusively by local literary journal Ateneu, which also presented reviews of her translations and awarded her rendition of Plath with the 2013 Translation Prize. Another example comes from Craiova, where Victor Olaru (presented in the previous section) works as a professor of Anglophone studies and publishes most of his translated selections in local Scrisul românesc, already mentioned extensively in this chapter in relation to other translation initiatives. Academic mobility of English language and literature scholars is another significant phenomenon that usually prompts translation projects from Canadian and U.S. poetries. The most visible and fruitful academic exchange program that benefited Romanian universities has been for years the Fulbright program, supported by the U.S. Department of State. It has been customary for Romanian-born American scholars traveling to universities in Romania for such exchanges to have their work translated into Romanian and, depending on their Romanian language proficiency, to translate themselves other American fellow poets. It is the case of Boston-based scholar and poet Mihaela Moscaliuc, a Fulbright fellow with the Al. I. Cuza University in Iași during the 2014-2015 academic year and during whose tenure a selection from the work of poets Gerald Stern222 and Michael Waters223 is published in a local literary journal and a poetry reading featuring translations of Michael Waters’ poems by her students is organized during the International Education Festival in Iași in 2015. Another selection appears three years later in Convorbiri literare,224 also based in Iași. While the attention devoted to Waters can be certainly explained by the incontestable value of his work, I also found out that Moscaliuc and Waters have long been married (Welsh 2013) and that Waters had himself been a Fulbright lecturer with the same university only a few years before 222 Stern, Gerald. 2012. “România România; Ukrainianul; Fructul morţii.” (Mihaela Moscaliuc, Trans.) În: Poezia 17 (3): 169-171. 223 Waters, Michael. 2012. “Rochia de mireasă; Irachieni morţi; Măsline negre. (Mihaela Moscaliuc, Trans.) În: Poezia 17 (3) 166-171. 224 Waters, Michael. 2015. “Morpho; Litoral; Radu Lupu.” (Mihaela Moscaliuc, Trans.). In Convorbiri literare 4: 144-145. 177 Moscaliuc’s residency (id.). Since the local literary scene might have been somewhat familiar with his work, a series of translations followed by an interview225 towards the end of his wife’s tenure made good sense. The association of Waters’ work with translations of the celebrated poet Gerald Stern in the same journal feature, though, might appear as striking, but it can be easily explained by Moscaliuc’s long-lasting academic interest in Stern’s work.226 All these unique sets of conditions have led to a heterogeneous set of translation projects that cannot be the initiatives of anybody else but the translator herself. However, her exclusive focus on Waters and Stern makes her rank very low in all centralities and keeps her disconnected in the transnational graph. In terms of subsequent translation projects, Moscaliuc’s residency with the university in Iași differs significantly from Tara Skurtu’s experience during her two fellowships at the University in Sibiu. Although of Romanian extraction, Skurtu’s level of Romanian did not allow her to translate from the English, but only into English. However, her encounter with Radu Vancu, a prominent player on the local and national literary scene, resulted in numerous selections of her poetry being translated into Romanian. The prospect of relocation to Romania, which took place in 2017, after two Fulbright residencies, as well as the prospects of an adjustment to and an integration in a new literary scene, likely asked for a generous number of translations that would properly introduce her to Romanian audiences, and especially tightly-knit literary networks. Skurtu’s selection of seven poems translated by Radu Vancu227 was most likely occasioned by her participation in the 2014 International Literary Festival in Sibiu, a mention that appears in his translator’s note after a very detailed enumeration of eleven American journals that have published her work to date, alongside 225 Moscaliuc, Mihaela. 2015. ““Unitatea poetică”: interviu cu poetul american Michael Waters.” (Ioana Lionte, Trans). In Convorbiri literare 5: 17-18. 226 Moscaliuc, Mihaela. 2016. “Insane Devotion: On the Writing of Gerald Stern.” (Philip Levine, Foreword). Trinity University Press. 227 Skurtu, Tara. 2015. “Indian River în amurg; Foame; Limită; etc.” (Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Mozaicul 18 (2): 18. 178 a fellowship and a prize. After two more selections in 2014228 and 2015,229 in 2016 Vancu even translates a full volume of Skurtu’s, one that has been only very recently launched in the United States—in January 2018. The release of a Romanian translation before the launch of the original book may be very pertinently related to her adjustment to the new literary network she was about to join. Another translation of her work was occasioned by the passing of Romanian contemporary poet Andrei Bodiu, to whom she dedicated a poem.230 As a matter of fact, many of the poems she wrote during her academic residencies were heavily anchored in her new life in Romania, which on the one hand made them very exotic for the American readership, and on the other made them easily translatable and approachable for a Romanian audience. Her presence in the transnational graph is due to Micu’s one-time contribution, which is not enough to give her any kind of prominence. However, in the general network of translation in PP (Figure 1, section 2.1), she belongs in the giant component due to the translations done by Vancu. This is one of the most relevant example of how translators influence the network they are part of: although insignificant in the transnational component where one would naturally place her because of her profile, she gains more prominence in the general network because of the numerous translations by a translator well- positioned in that network. Skurtu’s translation experience as an American scholar and poet is different from those of other scholars and poets involved in the same exchange. No other poet has benefitted from so many translations like she did. For example, Christopher Bakken, a Fulbright scholar in 2008, had only a 228 Skurtu, Tara. 2014. “Indian River at Dusk / Indian River în amurg.” (Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Zona nouă. Web: http://bit.ly/2FKWrYL. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. 229 Skurtu, Tara. 2015. “Stricat.” (Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Subcapitol, Oct. 25. Web: http://bit.ly/2EM5GX9. Last accessed: January 18, 2018. 230 Skurtu, Tara. 2014. “Amintindu-mi de Andrei Bodiu.” (Alice Valeria Micu, Trans.) In Caiete silvane 10 (112): 44. http://bit.ly/2FKWrYL http://bit.ly/2EM5GX9 179 journal selection of his poetry231 translated by Ioana Ieronim. Ieronim—a poet who made a name for herself as one of Andrei Codrescu’s translators, but who also happens to be the sister of Mihai Moroiu, American Program director with the Fulbright Commission in Bucharest since 2003— translates in 2011 Fulbright grantee Martin Woodside.232 She had met Woodside in person at a conference and literary festival in Neptun, an academic and literary dissemination venue for all Fulbright fellows each year. This is where Ieronim also met Canadian writer Cheryl Antao Xavier and followed up with a translated selection of her work.233 The event also prompted a translation from her long-time acquaintance, New York City-based Andrey Gritsman.234 Although Woodside’s fellowship did not result in many translations of his own work, his meeting with Chris Tanasescu in Bucharest was the trigger for further, more ample projects. Besides being translated for the first time into Romanian by Tanasescu,235 Woodside put together an anthology of Romanian poetry in English translation in 2011236 and co-translates with the Romanian a volume of selected works by surrealist poet Gellu Naum in 2013,237 Finally, I would like to also mention here the translation done by Aura Taras Sibișan, a lecturer at the Transylvania University in Brașov, of the poetry of Jeremy 231 Bakken, Christopher. 2008. “Paul Celan; Purgatoriul, carte poştală; Egloga 7 (Matia).” In Luceafărul 16 (21): 9. 232 Woodside, Martin. 2011. “Livrare; Spune-i dans; În acest oraş; etc.” (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă 26-27: 14. 233 Antao-Xavier, Cheryl. 2010. “O lume a gunoaielor.” (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.) In Luceafărul 18 (25-26): 9. 234 Gritsman, Andrey. 2011. “In memoriam; Conversaţie; etc.” (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.) In Luceafărul de dimineaţă. 26-27: 12. 235 Woodside, Martin. 2010. “De livrare; Odă Bucureştilor; Dans, cum ar veni; etc.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 144 (3): 114-115. 236 ***. 2011. Of Gentle Wolves. An Anthology of American Poetry (Martin Woodside, Ed.). New York, NY: Calypso Editions. 237 Naum, Gellu. 2013. Athanor and Other Po(h)ems (Martin Woodside and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). New York, NY: Calypso Editions. 180 Hawkins,238 a Fulbright grantee in 2008-2009 with the same institution, alongside the one-time translation by Felix Nicolau of visiting Master of Arts’ student D.M. Andrei.239 Although the amount of U.S. and Canadian poetry translated as a result of transnational exchanges and by transnational poets is quite significant, one cannot talk about patterns of inclusion or exclusion or about a cultural poetics because all these translation acts are highly heterogeneous (1 giant component and 12 disconnected components) and depend on the positionality of poet- translators (Bradford ibid.: 230-231). Such transnational networks are highly interpersonal in poetry translation, even when they are the result of exchanges supported by various institutions. As Jones rightfully argues, “[p]oetry translation is produced by networks of agents working across a ‘distributed’ space. This implies that it is simplistic to conceptualise literary translation in terms of one agent’s loyalty to one cultural space.” (ibid.: 301) Furthermore, a transnational paradigm and a network approach bring into discussion the idea of subjectivity, randomness, and even opportunism and nepotism as significant driving forces behind any translation project, all related to an increasing translator agency and resulting in a highly heterogeneous web of relationships. 238 Hawkins, Jeremy. 2009. “Suprapunere: Robert S. McNamara; Valjevo 1915; Preludiul după; etc.” (Aura Taras Sibişan, Trans.) In Vatra 7-8: 178-180. 239 Andrei, D. M. 2014. “Nu luna era cu răspunsul; Baban, grăsan popă fluviu; Fă stânga împrejur.” (Felix Nicolau, Trans.) In Arca 4-6: 135. 181 2.3. Poetry Translation in the Technoscape 2.3.1. A New Economy of Attention As we are moving into an age of “post-print translation literacy,” (Cronin 2013: 6) literary translators find themselves in a position that allows them to shake off the cloak of invisibility and become manifest players in the new economy of attention. The theoretical milieu from which this subchapter proceeds is Michael Goldhaber (1997), Georg Franck (1999) and Jonathan Beller’s (2006) notion of “attention economy,” according to which human attention is scarce and productive of value and is thus easily commodified by the contemporary digital technoculture. Literary translation in the media milieu becomes information conveniently passed along for free in exchange for potential instant recognition on the part of the readers and is undergirded by the tenet that information is the newest kind of wealth available, one that can be acquired simply by reaching out into the cyberspace. In this new context, Cronin notes, translators’ use of technology is bound up with ‘disintermediation’, which leads to their increased independence, allowing translation to become a kind of autographic work, radically different from the allographic work of invisibles (ibid.: 5). In this new digital reputation economy, the heavily intermediated print runs of translated books and the circulation of magazines are replaced by convenient hyperlinks that one can access anywhere, at any time. Literary translators realized very fast that “[…] obtaining attention is obtaining a kind of enduring wealth, a form of wealth that puts you in a preferred position to get anything this new economy offers.” (Goldhaber 1997) This has led to new literary journals, blogs, and platforms being set up for the benefit of authors, translators, and literature consumers (Jones 2017). Not only do 182 they offer instant access to potentially valuable literature, but they also propose variety, as “digital reproduction allows for endless replication of difference, not endless replication of same.” (Cronin 2013: 5). Managing the new bonanza of information we are perpetually faced with is possible only through culturally and historically-conditioned attention as a form of care (Stiegler 2010), or as a struggle for criticality, as Cronin puts it. Attention as a scarce resource has brought about a significant shift from production to promotion, through a tendency to minimize the costs and maximize the profits. As Gamboni rightfully notes, attention is relational—we pay attention to what we relate to, either physically or ideologically. The way we relate to, and thus pay attention to, a digital object, a translation in our case, makes it more, or less, visible: In the economy of attention, however, visibility is everything. If attention is the hard currency of cyberspace then […] attention flows do not simply anticipate flows of money but eventually end up replacing them. In attentional capitalism, attention is fast becoming the hegemonic form of capital. (Cronin 2016, web) In this new attention economy, there are numerous strategies that cater to the translator’s visibility, such as self-promotion via social network services, personal story-telling, and narrative self- presentation (van Dijck 2017: 152). The way digital space operates and serves the need of translators shifts the discussion to non-monetization, to the free labor that characterizes online cultural production—“the ongoing constitution of a nonunified collective intelligence outside and in between the blind alleys of the silicon age.” (Terranova 2000: 55). To Latour, financial motivations are not among the things that make people act. Famous for his disregard of the economics and the reification of institutions—“Structure is very powerful and yet much too weak and remote to have any efficacy” (Latour 2005: 168)—the French theorist sees the main motivation of our action in the way we relate to others. He acknowledges the role played by Web 2.0 in refashioning these relationships and the way we present ourselves to the world: “[T]he web is changing all of that and 183 fast: “to have” (friends, relations, profiles...) is quickly becoming a stronger definition of oneself than “to be.” (Latour 2010: web) Furthermore, the internet economy, characterized by scale economies, interdependencies, and abundance (Bauer et al. 2016), also occasions a slew of economic advantages that give translators much more freedom, allowing them to pursue projects that would otherwise be deemed non-lucrative by most literary publishers. It is—again—the notable case of poetry translation, especially contemporary poetry translation, works of authors that have not yet joined the canon to justify the investment. Instead, such works are often presented in the “electronic sweatshops” (Terranova ibid.) of the internet. During the first decade of the 2000s scholars warned about a series of potential drawbacks that stem from the vastness and democracy of the World Wide Web in relation to legitimacy of online cultural production and to the agency of poetry: […] amid the havoc of the “democratization” of cultural production in the last ten years due to the Internet and satellite TV, one can only guess whether poetry agents will ever be truly interventional, local or geographically nuclear again. The intervention will be virtual and the legitimization ephemeral and skeptical, as is the attitude toward Internet in general. As the intellectual field becomes larger and its outlines hazier, the poaching becomes more erratic, and the predictability of taste will respond more to a charting of the agility to pass from one form to another in the speed of upload and download and the flare for mimicry and pastiche than to the patience to read and digest. (Bradford 2009: 249) However, as we have started to talk about the post-digital (Berry 2014)—that is, how we think with the digital instead of how we think about it, and, especially, how we relate to it—, research on the topic of digital innovations in how we relate to poetry has begun to appear. Flemming-May and Green (2016) explore, through a series of online surveys and subsequent series of individual interviews, stakeholders’ attitudes and practices regarding poetry published exclusively in web- based media. The article specifically examines the project’s gathered data on creative writing faculty 184 from North American institutions who were surveyed and interviewed about online poetry publishing as both creators and consumers of the literary works. This study also explores creative writing instructors’ opinions about publishing in online literary publications in regard to career impact, including tenure and promotion. They depart from Sandra Beasley’s observation that “as glossy magazines die by the dozen and blogs become increasingly influential, we face the reality that print venues … are rapidly ceding ground to web-based publishing” (Beasley 2009: 59). They asked survey respondents to report on their online behavior regarding discovering and reading poetry. For the purposes of this study, they regarded these two activities as connected, but distinct. Respondents indicated that they visit the web to read poetry with great frequency: 71% indicated they did so either daily (36%) or weekly (35%) Virtually all survey respondents (99%) reported using the Internet to read poetry, even if they were among the respondents who preferred print publications or expressed skepticism about the quality of work published online. 75% reported that they publish, even if only occasionally, online. Flemming-May and Green concluded that, although online publications may present further challenges, most notably related to legitimacy, and although the innovation in question—the shift of literary publishing from the printed page to the web—has not been completely accepted by the literary social system, there are indications that the diffusion process for this model is well underway. 2.3.2. The Connective Turn: Translation as Echo-Statement Memory studies have been concerned lately with the way our remembering is influenced by the current post-scarcity culture—“the abundance, pervasiveness, and accessibility of communication networks, nodes, and digital media content.” (Hoskins 2011a: 20) According to Andrew Hoskins, as 185 the virtual world took hold of our memories through platforms such as Facebook or Flickr, what we previously conceived as place-bound (depending on family and nation and lodged in monuments and well-defined geographical locations) travels now in the digital space in unpredictable ways: The connective turn is the massively increased abundance, pervasiveness and accessibility of digital technologies, devices and media, shaping an ongoing re- calibration of time, space (and place) and memory by people as they connect with, inhabit and constitute increasingly both dense and diffused social networks. Put differently, the stuff (people, relationships, objects, events) subject to the connective turn is potentially perpetually ‘in-motion’ and suddenly more visible through the connectedness of post-scarcity culture. (Hoskins 2011b: 271) In the new culture of connectivity relationships are forged transmedially, both in the real and in the virtual world. Translation, as a culturally and socially-informed practice, and translators’ agency in what Hoskins terms “the connective turn” need to be looked at, I propose, from this point of view, in their capacity for creativity and collaboration stimulated by network technologies. As translation is “a kind of cultural kinship arrangement” (Cronin 2013: 11) that goes beyond the assimilationist paradigm of space, examining the way cultures relate to each other both online and offline invites a new type of engineering that englobes the geographical space alongside the vastness of Web 2.0. Since the pervasiveness of the digital has affected literary translation less than other types of translation, such an examination should not divorce place-as-we-have-known-it and ought to explore how the offline relates to the online. This stance is so much the more suitable since literary translation journals, platforms, or blogs are an advertising extension of the print. To this extent Cronin adopts Markus Novak’s notion of ‘transArchitecture’ in order to account for a new digital reality, ‘a liquid architecture that is transmitted across the global information networks; within physical space it exists as an invisible electronic double superimposed on our material world.’ (Marcus Novak (2009) cited in Cronin 2012: 15) For Cronin, the transArchitectural is underpinned by the same promise for creativity and expansion, as “the micro-spaces of the transArchitectural 186 become portals, not bolt-holes. Any point in physical space is doubled by a potential point of entry into the vastness of computer networks.” (2012: 15) Unlike macro-modernity, which views difference as oppositional by entertaining an assimilationist, dichotomous paradigm—host spaces receiving multilingual guest speakers that are forced to learn a dominant idiom (Cronin 2013)—micro-modernity looks for the company of strangers and takes advantage from the disintermediated access to the virtual space to establish connections. In this digital space, I argue, translation should not be necessarily analysed in terms of social networks, but as an information network fuelled by users through free labor—large corpora that exist in themselves and are critically dealt with by readers at any time. Such critical treatment— otherwise known as “the network effect”240—may lead to further refashionings of a translated text and, consequently, to a radically different way of connecting to the audience. Besides a novel mode of translator-reader interaction, the digital space lends itself very well to new modes of author-translator associations. In the era of transnationalism and digital communication, contemporary literary translation appears to trigger various international collaborations that go beyond institutionalized practices, being rather driven by private initiative and by tight author-translator relationships. Some of these collaborations have materialized in voluntary online associations/networks of agents (editors, translators, proofreaders, etc.) whose main aim is the popularization of literature originating in small countries or in languages that have been less translated. It has become much easier for such authors to cross the borders of their national literatures and become visible on the stage of world literature, as the post-Gutenberg era helps them circumvent the economic and physical barriers presented by traditional print venues. 240 A phenomenon where increased numbers of people or participants improves the value of a good or service (cf . Investopedia). 187 Similarly, literary translators have started to find ways of soliciting the attention of audiences, and therefore have become involved in advertising the products they work on. The shift from the economy of production to an economy of promotion did not affect only cyber-actants, but also translation itself in terms of quality: as digital consumers’ attention cannot be as vast as the cyberspace, the quality of translations remains the only viable way to attract attention (Cronin 2016). In Chaos Media, Stephen Kennedy discusses the virtues of digital space and, drawing on Leibniz, underlines the fact that one of its main features is the precedence of the qualitative over the quantitative: “[…] a series of interconnections that need to be understood as relative and qualitative phenomena.” (2015: 34, emphases mine) He then goes on to discuss Foucault’s perception of space, which reveals a critique of “total history and the monolithical temporal blocs that it imposes” (2015: 36) at the expense of “specific, singular, local events.” (id.) Kennedy characterizes digital space as a network of qualitatively connected floating locations. In much the same way, translations in digital space are freed of their spatial, geographic limits—they are offered more opportunities to exist by themselves and in themselves and, at the same time, together with other translations from different cultures—and thus all become freely traveling “echostates” (echoic statements) (2015: 73 et infra). Furthermore, translators acquire a higher degree of mobility, a mobility different from the institutional one, and less dependent on financial circumstances. Young or established translators take advantage of the liberties offered by blogs, online journals, and various electronic literary platforms, thus joining the network of digital publishing alongside that of translation. The concept of “sonic economy” that Kennedy advances as typical of digital space is “an appropriately dynamic, mobile mode of analysis […]: one not tethered to representation, one that can accommodate an almost perpetually shifting ground.” (Kennedy 2010: 188 web) It was designed to account for the complexities of contemporary technologically mediated environments and “sets out a mode of thought in which multiple aspects of production, communication and exchange are assigned and/or assume interrelated value, duration, and speed/tempo.” (id.) Translation as transmedial embodiment—both representation and echoic statement that embodies text, culture, and ideology—takes stock of chaos, understood not as disarray, but as patterning, “as a relative continuity punctuated by difference,” (Kennedy 2015: 1) rather than an immovable universal phenomenon. 2.3.3. Translators—the Digital Connection The Romanian literary scene has quickly caught up with the affordances of digital space. Its use of such affordances ranges from personal literary blogs or simply making available the .pdf file of the printed journal, to hybrid websites (like Poesis International241) and online literary platforms (Zona Nouă). However, only a few of these more complex initiatives take place exclusively online: many are extensions of traditional print venues that use digital space to expand their reach beyond print. Those that stay exclusively online are either affiliated to mainstream literary entities (such as the literary translation journal of the Writers’ Union242 or Polirom’s Literary Supplement243) or are various writers’ private initiatives, like Crevice.ro—online multimedia literary journal,244 curated by young poet Andra Rotaru. The latter hosts a network of emerging Romanian writers presented on the “Poetry Shelf” page alongside one of international writers translated into Romanian. We find 241 http://poesisinternational.com/ 242 www.filialatradlit-buc-usr.ro 243 Suplimentul de cultură: www.suplimentuldecultura.ro 244 www.crevice.ro http://poesisinternational.com/ http://www.filialatradlit-buc-usr.ro/ http://www.suplimentuldecultura.ro/ http://www.crevice.ro/ 189 here names like U.S. poet Lloyd Schwartz245, translated by young poet Tiberiu Neacșu, Daniel Owen246 of Brooklyn-based Ugly Duckling Press, or Henry Finch.247 The network that undergirds such a project is not complicated to track and is perhaps entirely based on friendship and literary affinities: for instance, in one interview Tara Skurtu identifies Lloyd Schwartz as her mentor in the creative writing MFA program at the University of Boston and it is no wonder that it is her partner, Tiberiu Neacșu, that translates Schwartz’s text on crevice.ro. This is not to offer unnecessary glimpses of Romanian writers’ personal lives, but to emphasize, once again, that personal networks and private initiatives are salient in contemporary poetry translation: in an interview for The Rumpus on the occasion of launching her latest book, Skurtu declares that she and Neacșu are “the American/Romanian poetry-portal super duo, and [they] aim to get more U.S. poets known [in Romania] and more Romanian poets known in the U.S. and beyond.” (Anderson 2018) Another fully online literary journal is EgoPHobia, founded and run by Germany-based poet and mathematician Sorin-Mihai Grad and philosophy professor and poet Ștefan Bolea. With a history of 53 issues as of April 2018, EgoPHobia has been hosting a sizeable amount of North American contemporary poetry in translation, from transnational Derek Walcott248 to Americans Gary Snyder,249 Michael Heller,250 or Canadian Seymour Mayne.251 What started in June 2004 as a literary venue for self-promotion—“a journal in which to invest time, ideas, and effort, but mostly 245 Schwartz, Lloyd. 2017. “Lucifer in New York.” Web: https://crevice.ro/lucifer-in-new-york/ 246 Owen, Daniel. 2017. “Washing Dishes by Starlight,” “Good Fellowship of Dust,” etc. Web: https://crevice.ro/the- hardness-of-the-stone/ 247 Finch, Henry. 2017. “Hot Still Scape,” “The Bear and the Hammer,” etc. Web: https://crevice.ro/hot-still-scape/ 248 Walcott, Derek. 2017. “Poeme de Derek Walcott.” (Monica Manolachi, Trans.) In EgoPHobia 52. Web: http://egophobia.ro/?p=12007 249 Snyder, Gary. 2013. “Poeme de Gary Snyder.” (Raluca Tanasescu, Trans.) In EgoPHobia 37. Web: http://egophobia.ro/?p=9530 250 Heller, Michael. 2013. “Poeme de Michael Heller.” (Raluca Tanasescu, Trans.) In EgoPHobia 38. Web: http://egophobia.ro/?p=9827 251 Mayne, Seymour. 2012. “Poeme de Seymour Mayne.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In EgoPHobia 34: http://egophobia.ro/?p=8417 https://crevice.ro/lucifer-in-new-york/ https://crevice.ro/the-hardness-of-the-stone/ https://crevice.ro/the-hardness-of-the-stone/ https://crevice.ro/hot-still-scape/ http://egophobia.ro/?p=12007 http://egophobia.ro/?p=9530 http://egophobia.ro/?p=9827 http://egophobia.ro/?p=8417 190 [the owners’] literature in which no one believes but [themselves]”252—gathered a considerable network of collaborators who have been providing constant content, actually all subject to blind reviews, for the past fourteen years. A similar enterprise is Tiuk!253, which has been published exclusively online since 2001. With a dedicated translation section that presents republications254 or new translations,255 this journal provides all the content for free. A more recent literary initiative is subcapitol.ro, a website with a pithy visual component, where scattered translations256 appear alongside poems by Romanian authors. There is no search widget, therefore one cannot distinguish between translations and non-translations unless one clicks the featured image and opens the desired page. Out of the online initiatives that unfold on a multi-layered network, both online and offline, Zona nouă appears to be the most promising project run by young writers. According to Chivu (2015), the initiative started out of a literary circle run by poets Radu Vancu and Dragoș Varga at Lucian Blaga University in Sibiu and took the shape of a print journal in 2012 (Zona nouă), a literary platform (www.zonanoua.com) in 2014, and a festival (The Zona Nouă International Poetry Festival) in 2015. Financially supported by the Lucian Blaga University, by the local Transilvania literary journal and the Astra Library, the project still owes a lot to the butterfly effect of literature. What started as a publication venue for literature students and young poets in Sibiu soon became a 252 The authors jocosely conclude: “So two self-proclaimed poets, Bolea and Grad, suddenly decided they wanted a journal that won’t reject their writings, they looked for a bunch of collaborators with similar expectations and we found ourselves with yet another so-called literary magazine on the local web.” (Grad 2004: web) 253 www.Tiuk.reea.net. 254 A valuable example is the republication of A.E. Baconsky’s translation of “Grass,” by Carl Sandburg: http://bit.ly/2qy73nH. 255 They host translations from various languages, including from U.S. contemporary poets like Jim Harrison (translated by Vlad Drăgoi: http://bit.ly/2GYilMe and http://bit.ly/2qxEMNh). 256 A recent example is a translation by Radu Vancu from the work of Tara Skurtu: http://bit.ly/2JNxYnG. http://www.zonanoua.com/ http://www.tiuk.reea.net/ http://bit.ly/2qy73nH http://bit.ly/2GYilMe http://bit.ly/2qxEMNh http://bit.ly/2JNxYnG 191 publication with a wider scope based one the desire of these young people to connect and to look for resources and practices beyond the national border: After we met young foreign writers and saw what they did in terms of literature and journalism, we started to want to do more and we began to have new poets and young fiction writers from all over the world join us by translating their work, asking them questions, trying to understand better what they did, and also to show what we read, what we discover, and what we like to those of them who were interested. (Vasiliu 2015: web) This long-distance networking resulted in two anthologies, one of ten Spanish poets under thirty, and one of fourteen North-American young writers, as well as in a festival in 2015, where they all met in the flesh and started developing new connections for further collaborations. As Vlad Pojoga—the editor-in-chief of Zona nouă—recounts, the writers who took part in the festival “were following each other on Facebook, Instagram, and blogs, and formed a totally new generation, fully digital and very, very fresh.” (Vasiliu ibid.) Pojoga also recounts how they connected through one of the participants to other writers in many other countries, from the Czech Republic to Portugal to South America, how they animated the city during the festival through volunteers who put up poems on fliers, telephone poles, laptops, wallets, in bookstores, libraries, and pubs. The networks formed online resumed communication in real life and then went back online. However, a different pattern can be noticed for the network of the texts that were exchanged and translated (Figure 16). Supported by various institutions, Zona nouă is sold in bookstores and through mail orders and not much content is actually open access, not even a few months after the publication of any of the issues. The content produced by fully-digital young poets remains very much offline. The website hosts only minimal content meant to guide readers to the actual print journal. In the case of the anthology of young American poets translated into 192 Romanian257—actually a selection of fourteen writers hosted in a double magazine issue in 2014— there is even a dedicated order form on the website. This example shows how digital space enables and furthers literary communication and writer networks and how it may serve in terms of marketing and distribution. The group’s use of the available technology, the image-based concept of the web page that offers minimal content, and the frequently updated Facebook pages may suggest an inherently digital, hip endeavor when, in reality, it is a traditional publishing enterprise that is fuelled by a network of born-digital writers. Figure 16. The circulation of translations in the Zona nouă complex network. A third category of literary initiatives in digital space are literary platforms, which publish literature, non-fiction, criticism, cultural news, interviews, and inquiries. Two of such endeavors are semnebune.ro and liternet.ro. Semne Bune started up in 2009 as an independent mouthpiece for the benefit of Romanian publishers, essentially aiming at increasing the number of readers in general, especially among the youth. In 2011, their offer diversified and now the website contains a very wide range of materials, from theater reviews to translations. The latter are seen as a 257 ***. 2014. “Everything in Its Right Place.” In Zona nouă 3-4. 193 “playground,” brimful of creativity, and may be found in various sections of the website.258 LiterNet was founded and launched in 1999 as a website to promote Romanian literature, but only two years later its scope was expanded, so that now it hosts a slew of different sections, from e-publications to music news. Translations are usually hosted in the “Atelier LiterNet” section, alongside theoretical essays on the craft of translation259, interviews with translators, and translation reviews. Under the moniker “Poem of the Week” one may find both poems in the original language and translations and the rubric is once in a while curated by a poet (http://bit.ly/2HsoOyF).260 Finally, like any other artists, poets have their own fandom and the dialogue with them often takes place on personal blogs, where the readers talk back through spatially-connected comments. Fans, or readers, provide almost instant feedback and thus become participants in the creative process besides being authors of the respective blog themselves. While traditional media studies have considered blogging as “a space for one person to voice their opinion,” (Booth 2017: 56) more recent approaches include readers as content makers and community builders, while blogs are seen as documents permanently expanded by comment additions, not only the owner’s publishing new posts (id.). If print capitalism led to a series of large-scale projects of ethnic affinity (Appadurai 1996: 28), translation in the new economy of attention becomes a living text that gathers around it readers and agents with similar literary tastes, thus encouraging congregations of literary affinity that float in an indefinite space. 258 For instance, some of Seymour Mayne’s word sonnets (http://bit.ly/2qxjAaV), David Baker’s (http://bit.ly/2HBWA23) and Bruce Bond’s (http://bit.ly/2qx4FNV) most recent poems in Romanian translation (all by Chris Tanasescu) or Vlad A. Gheorghiu’s translation of Gregory Corso (http://bit.ly/2vd72dz) are listed in the section Preface, which also hosts book launch ads and interviews. 259 LiterNet.ro hosts a large amount of essays signed by Bogdan Ghiu, translation theorist and translator of M. Foucault, J. Derrida, P. Bourdieu, G. Deleuze, F. Guattari, G. Bataille, and others into Romanian. 260 While a curator of “Poem of the Week” in 2016 and 2017, Ioana Ieronim published translations from various world poetries, including from the U.S. (Christopher Merril: http://bit.ly/2HAS03S). LiterNet also hosted, among others, one of Charles Bukowski’s poems translated by Dan Sociu: http://bit.ly/2HAOBSE. http://bit.ly/2HsoOyF http://bit.ly/2qxjAaV http://bit.ly/2HBWA23 http://bit.ly/2qx4FNV http://bit.ly/2vd72dz http://bit.ly/2HAS03S http://bit.ly/2HAOBSE 194 Literary blogs in Romania are extremely numerous and publishing translations or translation reviews on such blogs is a current practice. For instance, an interesting discussion on the need for yet another anthology of contemporary American poetry has taken place on Claudiu Komartin’s blog, unanotimpinberceni.blogspot.ro. In a post about U.S. poetry anthologies published in Romanian before 2011, Komartin provides his ideal line-up261 of contemporary American poets and evokes a number of other poets preferred by various Romanian authors who commented on this piece of writing. The blog post also reveals the names of several translators that this community considers as experimented, like Chris Tanasescu, Rareş Moldovan, Domnica Drumea, Dan Sociu, Radu Vancu. The twenty-seven comments also contain three translations of poems by Anne Sexton and W.H. Auden, posted by an anonymous user in response to Komartin’s piece, without any other remark. Each translation mentions the name of the translator, Petru Dimofte, a name I have not come across in any other context except for the digital one. Further research does not reveal anything about this translator except for the hundreds of poems he has translated and published on various websites. However self-effacing the translator, the Romanian versions he offers are good, while other translations from more formal poets published by him elsewhere are sometimes excellent. A final example is a translation-dedicated blog by young poet Florin Buzdugan, traduceriledesambata.wordpress.ro, where young translators offer their versions for poems by John Berryman262, James Laughlin263, Daniel Borzutzky264, or Sam Hamill265. 261 Komartin’s choices are: “John Ashbery / W.H. Auden / Ted Berrigan / John Berryman / Charles Bukowski / Billy Collins / Gregory Corso / Lawrence Ferlinghetti / Allen Ginsberg / Louise Glück / Jack Kerouac / Denise Levertov / Philip Levine / Robert Lowell / W.S. Merwin / Frank O'Hara / Charles Olson / Robert Pinsky / Sylvia Plath / Elizabeth Bishop / Kenneth Rexroth / Anne Sexton / Charles Simic / W.D. Snodgrass / Gary Snyder / Mark Strand.” (2011: web) 262 Berryman, John. 2015. “Două poeme de John Berryman.” (Ioana Ungureanu, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2H6vHWL 263 Laughlin, James. 2015. “Trei poeme de James Laughlin.” (Ioana Ungureanu, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2HrNpmR 264 Borzutzky, Daniel. 2015. “Două poeme de Daniel Borzutzky.” (Ioana Ungureanu, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2JRD7L8; and Borzutzky, Daniel. 2015. “Poem de stat.” (Ioana Ungureanu, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2H1pAmt 265 Hamill, Sam. 2016. “Poemul new-yorkez; Ceea ce știe apa.” (Florin Buzdugan, Trans.) Web: http://bit.ly/2JLduff http://bit.ly/2H6vHWL http://bit.ly/2HrNpmR http://bit.ly/2JRD7L8 http://bit.ly/2H1pAmt http://bit.ly/2JLduff 195 *** Poetry translation in digital space is a current practice, but how does it affect translation as we know it? How does digital space enable translation? E-zines preserve intermediation through dedicated editing teams but disrupt other links in the trade publishing chain, such as printers, distributors, and retailers, and they enhance users’ access. Digital space is not marred by the idea of translation as a second-rate text, as it is rarely presented alongside the original, and when it is, the two texts are not both on the same page: original and translation live their own separate lives due to the affordance of hyperlinks. Moreover, whenever accompanied by images, translation becomes performed, visually-enhanced, itself translated into image. Last but not least, digital space does not entertain obsolescence and therefore re-translation is generally far from being perceived as necessarily needed. Besides offering instant access, the online also allows translators a high degree of liberty and the possibility of permanent revisions. Translations thus become living texts, embodiments of their translator’s agency and of their readers’ feedback, or, in Kennedy’s words, echostatements. 196 CHAPTER 3. CHAOS OUT OF ORDER: TRANSLATIONS OF AMERICAN AND CANADIAN CONTEMPORARY POETRY INTO ROMANIAN BEFORE 1989 3.1. Translators’ Agency in a Centralized (‘Star-Like’) Translation Network The purpose of this chapter in the economy of this research is twofold. After Chapter 2 explored translation features published in the print periodical network between 2007 and 2017 and illustrated the theoretical framework provided in the introductory section and in Chapter 1, I set out to provide what I believe is a much needed brief historical overview of the role played by such literary journals in the circulation of U.S. and Canadian modern and contemporary poetry translated into Romanian before 1989. Chapter 3 is intentionally displaced from a chronological point of view because it does not only facilitate a better understanding of why print periodicals have been so important in Romanian literary history, but it also aims to describe the network of translated contemporary poetry author-collections and anthologies before the fall of communism. In doing so, it sets the context for investigating the translated book publishing network after 1989, which I broach in the final chapter. Understanding the practices of Romanian poetry translators before and between the two World Wars and then during the difficult years of communist rule is necessary because it allows us to have a better grasp of why and how translation happened, how such mechanisms were perpetuated after the country’s political status changed, and, more importantly for my objectives, what was the role of translators in shaping a corpus of American and Canadian contemporary poetry. First, I point out the importance of literary translation for shaping up Romanian poetry as we know it today, as well as the role played by poet-translators in this process. My contention is 197 that modern and contemporary U.S. and Canadian poetry translation between 1867266 and 1989 owes greatly its existence to Romanian poets’ work: while the overwhelming majority of author- collections were published by Univers Press, the landscape of poetry anthologies is more varied and emphasizes the essential role translators have always played. Second, and in parallel, this chapter underscores the central position that literary journals have always had in the activity of literary translation, alongside translators’ initiatives and cultural mobility. While it can be argued that journals are institution-like structures that shape the taste of their audiences, in Romania we have witnessed a reversal of this situation: most literary periodicals were founded or changed their orientation according to the taste of their following. Finally, I posit that poetry translation in Romania has followed its own pattern and was not only influenced by the practices of more hegemonic cultures: while their taste did have a role in modelling the translators’ wish to align Romanian culture to the more established ones, patterns were also largely determined by translators’ personality, historical circumstances, and translators’ networks. The latest research carried out by various scholars on the position of Romanian literature within and as world literature (Martin, Moraru, and Terian, Eds. 2018) conjectures that “the emphasis on the nation-state as a “basic unit” of analysis and on nationalism broadly can be defined […] as the tendency of a system to limit cultural mobility.” (Goldiș 2018: 95) Or, as these scholars demonstrate, Romanian literary history, including the translations it contains, has never been subsumed to a static mode of existence, but to a deeply transnational traffic of cultural goods, “no matter how “marginal,” stable, all-of-a-piece, and well configured most literary histories picture them.” (ibid.: 96) This new criticism of the old modes of analysis of Europe’s southeastern 266 The year the literary society Junimea was founded, marking the beginning of modern Romanian literature. 198 peripheries includes the “original vs. translation” model, which they regard as obsolete and non- reflective of the mergers cultures establish and of the multiple cultural memberships foreign writers acquire through translation. Alex Goldiș proposes an interactional model for the analysis of literary histories grounded in Stephen Greenblatt’s notion of “cultural mobility” (Greenblatt 2009) and notes that instead of trying to fill the gaps of national literary history by linking the numerous translations from Allen Ginsberg, for instance, to an autochtonous tradition, one may benefit more from an interactional model that unearths those geocultural nodes which enabled the meeting of the Romanian and U.S. cultures and stimulated them. Carmen Mușat (2018) too goes beyond the imitation stereotype and analyzes the importance of geocultural networks for the rise of modern Romanian literature. To her, looking at others does not mean imitation or a derivative body of work, but a highly formative act engendered by new aesthetic protocols, concordance, and kinship, all marked by the idea of exchange and not by mere emulation. Mușat argues that the perpetually shifting borders of that part of Europe have created a more complex literary environment, marked not by one national identity, but by multiple, “intersectional,” and “nodal” identities. A short relaxation in an otherwise very strict communist ideology during the late 1960s and the early 1970s had French structuralism enter Romanian universities and caused a massive interest in the French nouveau roman and in contemporary American poetry. The interest in the latter was furthered by the large number of Romanian writers and professors emigrating to the U.S. and also to Canada after the cultural liberalization ended in the late 1970s. As we shall see, they were salient in proposing anthologies mirroring their new cultures of adoption and influenced a whole new generation of writers, the the so-called ‘Generation of the 1980s,’ whose representatives integrated new American writing in their own postmodern work, as a reaction to a pithy European complex. According to Mușat, this process happened in perfect synchronicity with American postmodernism 199 and took place through a series of translations done in the 1970s, a moment of perfect synchrony with the world’s literature. The corpus of author-collections (Figure 17a and Figure 17b) translated before 1989 and marking this generations’s interest in their American counterparts (Diane Wakoski, Frank O’Hara, alongside Pound, Plath, Eliot, W. Stevens, T. Roethke, W.D. Snoddgrass, and W.S. Merwin) form a disconnected network dominated by a ‘star-like’ giant component—Univers Press as a central hub of translations from contemporary poets (higher clustering and higher average density, cf. Annex 4): Figure 17a. Contemporary U.S. poetry collections translated before 1989. Legend: red = publishers, blue = authors The most central and influential nodes are Univers Press and Ezra Pound both in G and G0. However, it is the disconnected component, the translation published by Albatros, which would be republished after 1989, while none of the other translations have ever been republished. The only 200 poets retranslated by different translators after 1989 are T.S. Eliot267 and Ezra Pound. Data visualization alone does not point to translators’ agency. When translators are factored in the visualization, the resulting graph indicates translators Constantin Abăluță and Ștefan Stoenescu as preferred by Univers Press for contemporary poetry projects and all the others (L. Ursu, I. Caraion, V. Teodorescu, P. Negoșanu, Ioan A. Popa, and V. Nicolescu,) as potentially having a more important role in the decision-making process prior to the publication of these translations: Figure 17b. Network of publishers, authors, and translators before 1989. Legend: red = publishers, blue = authors, green = translators Throughout this chapter, I investigate available second sources and paratexts in an attempt to trace agency patterns related to the beginnings of American and Canadian English-language translation into Romanian that might have continued after 1960. 267 The only pre-1989 translations included in the retranslation of poems by Ezra Pound (2015) and T.S. Eliot (2010) published by Humanitas belong to Mircea Ivănescu, who had included those poems in his 1986 anthology. 201 3.2. The Earliest Connections to the ‘New World’ (1867-1918) In 1840, Romanian statesman, historian, and publicist Mihail Kogălniceanu had made what appears as a controversial, unsubstantiated statement: “Translations do not make a literature.” 268 Kogălniceanu’s attitude was determined by the doubtful taste of Romanian aristocrats for mediocre French poetry and, subsequently, by a series of low-grade translations from the French. His remark was only one moment in Kogălniceanu’s goal for his newly-established Dacia literară, a journal for the Romanians in all three historic provinces, to promote original, local literature—inspired by Romanian folklore and history—as well as an objective literary critique. However, it can be easily surmised that translations continued to play an important role in these provinces. As historian János Kohn aptly notes in one of the few overviews of this country’s tradition in translations that: The flourishing of translation activity during the nineteenth century had an enduring influence on Romanian cultural life and helped to bring Romania closer to the rest of Europe. The influence of French culture could be seen in the overall process of modernization which began to take place. (2009: 514) Indeed so, the beginnings of the activity of literary translation owe a lot to French, both as source language and as a bridge for those languages that were unfamiliar to the Romanians. This process even led to the formation of the local literary language. The historical and religious writings of the 17th century had showcased a rigid language (with the exception of Dosoftei269), which started to assimilate words from Turkish, Greek and Russian in the 18th century, becoming almost incomprehensible. But Romanians started to learn French and adopt French manners, also because of the bias caused by the close relationships they had with the Russians and the Greeks. Also, 268 Ro. “Traducțiile nu fac, totuși, o literatură.” (Kogălniceanu, Mihail. “Introducție la Dacia literară. 1840 (program estetic).” Unpaginated. 269 Dosoftei (1624-1693): Moldavian priest, scholar, poet, and translator, best known for his Psalter in Verse (“Psaltirea în versuri”)—a translation that played a paramount role in the development of Romanian literary language. 202 starting in 1766, French language and literature teaching became mandatory in the Greek schools attended by Romanian noblemen, and in 1848, after the French (and Romanian) revolution, French became the second language of the elite. Little by little, the translations done from French enriched the language and modified the syntax. In her La Traduction. Là où tout est pareil et rien n’est semblable, Romanian scholar Magda Jeanrenaud argues that there has been historically an objective necessity for translations from great [major] literatures and explains in very clear terms the utmost influence that translations from French had over the formation of the Romanian literary language: C’est donc par l’intermédiaire des traductions que la langue roumaine prend conscience de son hétérogénéité, de son désordre, de sa pauvreté et ceci par le double effort de compréhension et de transposition des textes français dans le travail de traduction. […] Le français aurait ainsi servi de principe ordonnateur, capable de déterminer l’appréhension du désordre, mais aussi d’offrir les instruments nécessaires pour y réagir. (2012: 68) Since the second half of the 19th century, Romania has been a strongly francophone country in spite of its distance from France and of the fact that this is not about a culture, the French, colonizing another culture, the Romanian. The two countries had strong cultural, political and economic ties between the mid-19th century and the beginning of the 20th, doubled by an extraordinary large number of translations from French literature that was aimed at compensating for the lack of strong literary production in Romania. At the same time, they were both Romance languages, a reality that had a great influence on the interest of many Romanian upper class people in pursuing their studies in France. Magda Jeanrenaud rightfully concludes: « Pour que cette littérature ‘morte’ ressuscite, il aura fallu un miracle et ce miracle eut lieu sous l’influence de la civilisation française […] » (ibid.: 59) American literature became popular in Moldova and Wallachia due to the appeal of the Enlightenment to the intellectuals of that time, and the beginnings of this activity takes place 203 through the intermediary of French translations done by Baudelaire or Mallarmé. In Transylvania, the mechanism was a bit different, because of the education that children of local boyars used to receive in Paris, Berlin, Pisa, and Vienna. If in the 17th century translations were meant only to bring prestige to the vernacular language and the 18th century was mostly marked by nationalism, resistance to foreign leanings, and translations limited to church doctrines and practical matters, the beginning of the 19th shifted the interest to the subject matter of such foreign texts. That is why the first American author whose work was ever translated into Romanian was Benjamin Franklin— a philosopher and political theorist that was much admired for his common sense wisdom— followed by authors such as Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine. Franklin’s experiments and interest in technological progress gained traction in Transylvania towards the end of the 18th century. His livres de sagesse were much appreciated at the time and also, very importantly, approved by the Orthodox Church, but his literary works were translated only later. The flourishing of literary translations into Romanian is related to the appearance of literary supplements. Curierul românesc (1829), founded by Ion Heliade Rădulescu in Bucharest, Albina românească, established at Iași by Gheorghe Asachi, Mozaicul, started by Contantin Lecca in Craiova (Oltenia), or Gazeta de Transilvania and Foaie pentru minte, inimă și literatură, founded by George Barițiu and Timotei Cipariu in Transylvania, were instrumental in promoting literature in translation in all Romanian principalities. It was due to such intellectuals that Wallachians and Moldavians learned about Robertson’s History of America, Niagara Falls, the American Declaration of Independence,270 the American Constitution, and about the American way of life in general. 270 Translated in 1846 by historian and academic Simion Bărnuțiu. 204 Let us turn back to Kogălniceanu’s remark that translations do not make a literature. As Paul Cernat rightfully observes in his suggestively titled piece—“Translations do make a literature” (2016: web, emphasis mine) —, “[this remark] needs to be taken with a grain of salt: not as a form of cultural protectionism, but as a compensatory reaction against the excess of (superficially) executed adaptations, at the expense of original, local literary production.” (ibid.) Rightfully so, Kogălniceanu’s contribution to the development of literary translation was salient. He edited an almanac in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin and also declared that “[j]ournalism should follow the example of Franklin.” (cited in Perry 2001: 41). His own prose was modeled on Franklin’s, albeit drawing heavily on Romanian folk culture. Kogălniceanu was part of the 1848 generation, the pașoptist, known for shaping political structures and for “providing the start toward a genuine, distinctive literature,” (Perry ibid.) as well as for its synchronization with world literature. That happened especially after the Union of Moldova and Wallachia under the rule of Alexandru Ioan Cuza in 1859, when various intellectuals trained in France or Germany started to show interest in aligning their home culture to the Western European and American ones. The interest shifted from the subject matter to the literary values of alien cultures. In this context, Romania’s first literary critic, Titu Maiorescu, founder of the Junimea (Youth) Society and of the Convorbiri literare journal (1867), was a professed ‘retentionist’ and a fervent adversary of the ‘contentless forms,’ that is, the social and cultural life that slavishly imitates foreign models without being well-prepared to do so or that adopts foreign traditions which do not resonate with the cultural legacy of the Romanian people. Maiorescu dedicated special attention to New Realist authors, such as Americans Brent Harte and Mark Twain. And in his study titled “O cercetare critică asupra poeziei române de la 1867,” (A Critical Overview of Romanian Poetry as of 1867) Maiorescu introduces his colleagues at Junimea to the work of Edgar Allan Poe through the latter’s celebrated 205 poem The Raven, arguably the first contact between the Romanian and American poetry, via translations done in France by Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Valéry (Călinescu 1987). While Baudelaire saw Poe as a victim of American democracy and as a martyr in the catalogue of modern artistic alienation,” (Călinescu ibid.: 55) Thomas Amherst Perry argues that the Romanian critic was attracted by Poe’s crusading attack on mediocrity and the attention to craftsmanship,” (ibid.: 50) but also by Poe’s philosophy of composition, which Maiorescu thought should stress “rich overtones that expand meaning and feeling.” (id.) Maiorescu’s admiration for Poe bore immediate fruit: Mihai Eminescu—destined to become Romania’s leading poet, and Ion Luca Caragiale—later on the most valuable Romanian playwright— became familiar with Poe’s work and even translated quite extensively passages from his fiction. Unlike Baudelaire, who saw America as the embodiment of modern democracy, “which is nothing but the triumph of that which is both most natural and worst in man (self-interest, aggressiveness, herd instinct, etc.),” (ibid.: 57) both Romanian writers were attracted by Poe’s use of folk motifs, by how his realism mingled with the supernatural, by his satirical overtones, alongside the paradoxical mixture of feelings, order, and reason. However, it is not Eminescu or Caragiale who translated from Poe’s poetry. The Raven is first translated at the beginning of the 1890s, making it one of the texts that marked the arrival of Modernism in Romanian literature. Poet and literary theorist Alexandru Macedonski, one of Maiorescu’s opponents and a symbolist poet experimenting with free verse, showed an overt interest in the American’s poetry and qualified The Raven as very “original and unsurpassed as fantasy.” (Verzea: 556-557, cited in Perry 2001) Macedonski’s associates translated The Raven 14 times between 1890 and 1915, all but one rendered in prose. The first version in verse is the one published by I. C. Săvescu in Liga literară in 1895. Caragiale’s less famous son, Luca Ion Caragiale— 206 poet, novelist, and translator—, also “renders successfully The Raven,” (Szabo 2012: 20) published posthumously in 1937 in Viața românească.271 Viața românească has been one of the most influential journals in the literary history of Romania, which owes its status to its long-time editor- in-chief Garabet Ibrăileanu, a promoter of “an interactive model of national cultures based on the dynamic character of global space.” (Goldiș 2018: 95) As Goldiș further notes, in spite of the rather nationalist tone of Ibrăileanu’s own writing, his view of world literature is not anchored in a model of stable national cultures—quite an original take on the world’s literary map for his time. Another version272 by George Murnu (writer, translator and literary historian) is published that very same year in Revista fundațiilor regale—the most reputed Romanian cultural magazine between the two World Wars, which only a few months later features a selection273 of Poe’s poems translated by Emil Gulian, himself a poet. The selection was a preview of the volume published by Gulian the following year: Poems of Edgar Allan Poe274—“the first translation in book form by a single Romanian translator.” (Cotrău 2014: 82) Later on Poe’s popularity among Romanian writers leads to another book of translations, titled Poezii și poeme,275 this time under the umbrella of Editura Tineretului and translated by Mihu Dragomir, another poet, fiction writer and translator, a former cultural officer in the Romanian Communist Party-affiliated Organization of Progressive Youth and also an editor for various literary publications after World War II. With Mihu, Poe enters a more institutionalized mode of translation, though one that does not want to do away with previous valuable versions. Gulian’s rendition of The Raven and of Poe’s poems in general remains 271 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1937. “Corbul.” (L. I. Caragiale, Trans.) In Viața românească XXIX (7): 39-44. 272 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1937. “Corbul.” (G. Murnu, Trans.) In Revista Fundațiilor Regale IV (3): 483-492. 273 Gulian, Emil. 1937. „Poeme din Edgar Poe”. In Revista Fundațiilor Regale IV (12): 538-539. 274 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1938. Poemele lui Edgar Allan Poe (Emil Gulian, Trans., Foreword). București: Editura Fundațiilor regale pentru literatură si artă. 275 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1964. Poezii si poeme (Mihu Dragomir, Trans., Foreword). București: Editura Tineretului. 207 the most popular (Carlson 1985). The volume he published in 1938 at EPLU bears the following subtitle: “Translated from the English in their [original] meter, and with an introduction by Emil Gulian,” 276 probably a response to the many previous renditions dubbed as ‘prose poems’, after the French fashion. However, the first attempt to translate Poe’s The Raven in rhymed verse belonged to G. D. Pencioiu,277 who turned to a German version (ibid.). In 1963, EPLU publishes yet another selection of Poe’s prose and poems,278 in which they include Gulian’s translations alongside a version of the same text by Dan Botta, a poet and translator that belonged to the same generation as Gulian. The book is re-edited in 1968, followed by a fifth edition279 in 1979. Finally, in 1987, Editura Univers publishes yet another selection280 of translations of Corbul, 15 versions of The Raven by 15 Romanian translators, whose work covers only part of the impressive number of translations published starting in 1890. A bibliographical study281 put together by the Metropolitan Library in Bucharest lists 35 features of Corbul in periodicals between 1890 and 1987 and 138 critical references to Poe’s work, which bears witness to the immense influence the American poet had on modern Romanian literature, as well as to the essential role played by individuals in disseminating his work through translation. A radiography of Poe’s Romanian translators shows that most of them were poets,282 among whom the American counterpart was extremely popular for his craft, outlined best in his The 276 [Ro.] Traduse din limba engleză în forma lor cu un studiu introductiv de Emil Gulian. 277 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1891. “Corbul” (Gripen = G. D Pencioiu, Trans.). In Românul literar 19: 146. 278 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1963/1968. Scrieri Alese (Emil Gulian and Dan Botta, Trans.). București: Editura pentru literatură universală. 279 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1979. Scrieri alese (În româneste de Ion Vinea, Constantin Vonghizaș, Emil Gulian și Dan Botta; Studiu introductiv de Zoe Dumitrescu-Bușulenga). București: Univers. 280 Poe, Edgar Allan. 1987. Annabel Lee și alte poeme (Ediție îngrijită, prefață, cronologie și comentarii de Liviu Cotrău). București: Univers. 281 Available online at http://bit.ly/2EFqWxt. 282 St.[efan] P.[etică] (1896; poet); Axelrad Luca (1909, Jewish-Romanian poet, translator, and publisher); Nicolae Daşcovici (1911; lawyer, historian, and publisher); Emil Gulian (1938/1963/1968/1979; poet); Mihu Dragomir (1964; poet, fiction writer); Dan Botta (1968/1969/1979; poet and essayist); G. D. Pencioiu (Gripen) (1891, 1892, 1904, 1987, http://bit.ly/2EFqWxt 208 Philosophy of Composition (1946). The essay on the Romanian translations of Poe, signed by Liviu Cotrău, rightfully notes that “the fact that three of Romania’s most distinguished writers had chosen to translate [him] was to contribute decisively to his fame.” (2014: 78) Poe’s impact does not cease with the end of modernism. Matei Călinescu (2003) demonstrates the American’s influence over the work of one of the most important Romanian avant-garde poets, Ion Barbu, while Cosmin Ciotloș (2009) notes his impact on contemporary poet Ioan Es. Pop’s Ieudul fără ieșire (Locked Ieud), a cult-book of the 1990s, typically seen as an alternative and personal history of the troubled communist period. The next in the series of American poets started by Poe was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, first translated by Bonifaciu Florescu, a French professor and a historian of culture, associated with Macedonski and a defendant of prosody.283 His versions, along with others that followed (by Vasile Alexandrescu-Urechia or George Coșbuc), were mostly published in the independent Vatra (The Hearth), and from the French. According to Perry, “Excelsior” is translated at least seven times by the end of the 19th century. The first translation from the English was done by poet Șt. O. Iosif in 1897. At the beginning of the 20th century, Nicolae Iorga, historian and literary critic extraordinaire, founded Semănătorul, a moderate literary magazine that brought together independent-minded writers such as Iosif, George Coșbuc, Ioan Slavici and Caragiale, all interested in Longfellow’s work, lawyer, translator, travel writer); Iuliu Cezar Săvescu (1893, 1895, 1987, poet, translator); L. I. Caragiale (1937, 1987, poet, novelist, translator); George Murnu (1937, 1987, historian, translator, poet); N. Parsenna (1943, 1987, poetry translator); P. P. Stănescu (1945, 1975, 1987, unidentified); Teodor Boşca (1958, 1987, playwright, translator); Petre Solomon (1970, 1987, professor of English, translator); Mihaela Haşeganu (1971, 1987, poet, translator); Marcel Breslaşu (1973, 1987, poet, composer, translator); I. Cassian Mătăsaru (1973, 1987, poet, translator); Ovidiu Bogdan (1975, 1987, unidentified); I. S. Sp.[artali] (1890, journalist, translator); I. Th.[eodorescu] (1892, unidentified); I. D. Ghiocel (1892, unidentified); Dim. C. Zavalide (1905, journalist, translator); Horia Petra-Petrescu (1909, journalist, playwright, prose writer, translator); Alexandru Viţianu (1921, poet, prose writer); Paul Sterian (1932, poet, civil servant); Alexandru T. Stamatiad (1945, poet, prose writer, playwright, translator); Ştefan Augustin Doinaş (1974, 1987, poet). 283 Ironically, he renders Longfellow’s “Excelsior” and “Psalm of Life” in prose. 209 in his topics, and tone. Verzea notes that Șt. O. Iosif was attracted by Longfellow’s “optimism, lively rhythms, sentimentalism, and moral tone,” (Perry ibid.: 560), while Perry also adds the sweet sentimental sadness that would have matched Iosif’s own tone (ibid.: 68). Iorga also becomes acquainted with Ralph Waldo Emerson, from whose work he translates three poems—“Freedom,” “Fate,” and “Pan,” which catered to Romanians’ taste for realism, but also the sensible and the fantastic-mysterious. 3.3. U.S. Poetry Translation between the Two World Wars With the birth of Greater Romania in 1918 and fueled by the victory of the Allies, the country experienced a real synchronization with Western Europe. Translations from American poetry via the French diminished in number, as Romanian translators became familiar with the English and started translating from the original language. Before the Great War, an important moment for this activity had been the upgrade of the American diplomatic representation in Bucharest to that of a Legation and the appointment of Eugene Schuyler as Diplomatic Agent and General Consul. Schuyler and the following diplomats contributed to increasing trade between the two countries and American writers became more widely read. In addition, cultural exchanges with the New World started playing a role of paramount importance. Iorga began collaboration with a Romanian-American newspaper in Cleveland—America—and various delegations of Romanian writers participated in the meetings of PEN Club International. In Bucharest, sculptor Constantin Brâncuși and musician George Enescu are among the ones who establish a Society for Friendship with the United States, under the patronage of Queen Mary in 1926. 210 Nine more translations of Poe’s The Raven were published between the two World Wars, but the literary genre of preference remained fiction. Romanians began to also show interest in critical articles on such writers, as well as in studies on American literature in general, with Poe and Whitman listed as “the American poets of first water.” (Perry ibid.: 80) But their attention is mostly focused on literary matters at home, on creating a cultural unity alongside the political one. Many of the translators committed to opening Romanian culture to American culture were men of letters, especially poets engaged in the debate between synchronism and protochronism, as Kohn aptly notes in his entry on Romanian translations: “During the first half of the twentieth century, a number of excellent translations were published by scholars who were established poets in their own right.” (ibid.: 514) One of the few American poets that joined the ranks of Romanian literature aficionados at the beginning of the century was Walt Whitman. The Romanian avantgarde writers, although displaying a clear penchant for French literature, found a great model in Whitman’s free verse, which served perfectly the rhythms of the local language. Tudor Arghezi translated “The Gods,” while Tristan Tzara offered two renditions of “Song of Myself” in 1911 and 1915 (cf. Perry 2001). The Union of all the historic Romanian provinces into one coherent country in 1918 brought along an awareness of a real danger the Romanian culture faced: that of being perceived as a mere appendage of the French. Since American culture was trying to assert its independence from British culture, the sympathy between the two strengthened, conscientiously or not. But, as Perry shrewdly notes, “[t]he Romanians exercised an individuality that set their interests in [American literature] apart from that of other Europeans.” (ibid.: 73). The selections of poems by Poe, Longfellow, or Whitman were very different from the selections published in French or German, and the critical preferences were different from those in Western Europe. Romanian poets before the Word War I 211 showed great interest in transcendental experiences, in the fantastic, the strange, and the absurd, as well as in the craftsmanship of the poets, especially expressed in short lyrics and free verse. The 1930s mark the beginning of an interest in more contemporary American poets, such as Edgar Lee Masters, William Carlos Williams, or Langston Hughes. This interest was mainly fueled by three influential books. The first one was America și românii din America (1930), Nicolae Iorga’s travelogue containing his impressions after a three-month visit to the New Continent, in which he concludes that there are elements in this newly established culture that could be useful for the Romanian one. In Iorga’s spirit, a group of young intellectuals, Noua generație, that wanted to go beyond the French influence and open Romania to more diverse perspectives, started to be more and more vocal. One of them was Petru Comarnescu, who won a grant to study in the United States. His book—the second important one in establishing a more substantial relationship with America, Homo Americanus (1933), sets out to defend the New World and its noble spirit, a reaction to the mockery the country was subject to in Western Europe. This volume also presents some reflections on American literature: Whitman was considered by Comarnescu a “true poet,” alongside Sandburg and Masters, “because of his natural stoicism and resigned, detached observation of scenes of life and death;” (ibid.: 92) Frost’s poetry was seen as the most interesting mixture of nature and sensitivity; Lindsay was appreciated for the mystic and pure notes of his verse, as well as for its Biblical rhythms, while Pound was extolled for his contributions to “revolutionary” American poetics, and “perfection of form.” (id.) Besides this book on his American experience, Comarnescu gives lectures in Bucharest on American jazz (Bârna 2016) and is the leader of a new generation gathered around the Criterion literary circle, together with Mircea Eliade, Mircea Vulcănescu, Dan Botta, Margareta Sterian, and others. His position was in stark contrast with that of Al. I. Philippide, 212 who thought that talking about American culture was a bit of a stretch, “for America has only technology.”284 A third seminal book for the history of poetry translation into Romanian is Portrete lirice (1936) by Ion Pillat, one of Romania’s greatest modernists. Pillat’s work aligned with critic Eugen Lovinescu’s principles of synchronism and differentiation. According to these two principles, despite the fact that Romanian literature generally needs to coordinate its development with other European literatures, its writers should also broach new ways of writing. If Romanian modernism is much influenced by established literary models, such as the Greek and Latin literary production, or French symbolism, it also draws heavily on the themes and myths of its own literary past. This is one of the reasons why interwar Romanian poetry deeply resonated with that of T.S. Eliot, for example, for whom tradition equated the cultural heritage of all humankind and experimentation was a quintessential part of a poet’s work: “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.” (Eliot 1931: ix). Anglo-American modernism was very attractive to Pillat because he considered that, just like the Romanians, American poets have their national specificity. Pillat’s book includes translations from Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Edwin Arlington Robinson, Robert Frost, Carl Sandburg, Edgar Lee Masters, Vachel Lindsay, and Amy Lowell. His own poetry volume, Poezii285, contains additional translations from Masters and Lowell, and includes a new poet in translation—Sara Teasdale. Pillat resonated with their concerns for American folk life, humanism, primitive power, American Transcendentalism, multi-planned perspective, rejection of symbol and allegories, preference for conciseness, precision, and condensation, and also with their simplicity without being banal. As Perry shrewdly notes, Pillat’s translations of Eliot are an attempt to 284 Philippide, Al. I. 1930. “Paul Morand și Americano-mania.” In Viața românească 7-8: 124-126. 285 Pillat, Ion. 1967. Poezii (vol. 1-2). București: Editura pentru literatură. 213 synthesize modern poetic techniques, including film and theater devices. In her monography dedicated to the Romanian translations of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, Roxana Bîrsanu notes that “[b]y means of [his] translation agenda, [Pillat] revealed his intention to introduce the less known forms of European poetry to Romanian redership,” (2014: 30) and “the preoccupation of Romanian letters in the interwar period with reaching a point of convergence between the European spirit and the local forms of expression.” (id.) Furthermore, Pillat describes the new American poetry as characterized by popular motif, but expressed in sophisticated and refined forms. He recommended American poetry as an example to follow “because it has learned how to assimilate a true expression of its nation’s soul.” (Perry ibid.: 100) One of the most prominent literary journals of the period was Gândirea (The Thinking). Although a proponent of home-grown traditionalist ideas, this cultural magazine was the literary hub that attracted most of the poets who translated various American poets, like Al. Busuioceanu— a translator of Whitman’s work—, Dragoș Protopopescu—who translated Robinson for his powerful syntax, tense phrases, severity of line, and amplified reticence286—, Petre Grimm—the translator of Longfellow’s “Evangeline” and “Excelsior,” reminiscent of Romanian landscape. Whitman had been introduced for the first time to Romanian audiences by Leo Bachelin, the librarian of the Romanian Royal Court, in an essay in Convorbiri literare (1912). Tudor Arghezi is the first who translated several Whitman poems in their entirety: in 1911 he publishes the Romanian translation of “Dalliance of the Eagle” and “Gods” in Versuri, a newly-founded Modernist literary journal. Then the Symbolist- turned-Dadaist Tristan Tzara translates passages from “Song of Myself,” attracted by Whitman’s irony and word music, which he emphasized in his translations. In 1925, Al. I Busuioceanu began a 286 “Edwin Arlington Robinson,” published in Gândirea 14, 1935, nr. 6, p, 324 cited in Perry, 2001, p. 99. 214 series of translations from Whitman,287 attracted by his transcendentalism and preoccupied with an ideological future for Romania (“The Base of All Metaphysics” and “The Song of the Open Road”). Other notable translations from Whitman’s work belong to Lucian Blaga (“Not Youth Pertains to Me”) and to Marxist Mihnea Gheorghiu, who was attracted by Whitman’s Socialist thought, optimism, and technical skill as a versifier. The overwhelming majority of translations of Whitman into Romanian belong to him.288 A holder of a Ph.D. in English and a dean of the School of English Language and Literature at the University of Bucharest, Dragoș Protopopescu published a study in 1935 in Gândirea about Edgar Lee Masters, but critic Ion Caraion translated seventeen poems from The Spoon River Anthology only in 1968.289 Between 1940 and 1945 interest in American modernism diminished for obvious historical reasons—including Romania’s declaration of war on the United States in December 1941—, with only one notable exception: the anthology prepared in 1945 by Al. T. Stamatiad and published two years later: Selections of American Poetry (1945),290 in which he includes translations of poems by minor imagists and experimental poets, such as Ralph Cheyney, Louis Gilmore, Emmanuel Carnevali, David O’Neill, Alfred Kreynborg, Leon Herald, and Marion Strobel, along with his translations of Poe. 287 Whitman, Walt. 1925. Poeme (traduse din engleză cu un studiu introductiv de Al. Busuioceanu). București: Editura Cultura națională. 288 Fire de iarbă (Editura de Stat, 1950. Translations in collaboration with Ion Frunzetti); Opere alese (Editura de stat pentru literatură și artă, 1956); Fire de iarbă (Editura tineretului, 1958); Poeme (Editura de stat pentru literatură și artă, 1960); Cântec despre mine (Univers, 1973; 1976); Opere alese (Univers, 1992); Leaves of Grass (Pandora, 2000). The only selections that were translated by other poets are Poeme (Margareta Sterian, Trans.; București: Pro Pace, 1945) and Poeme. Walt Whitman and Carl Sandburg. Selected and translated by George Macovescu (București: Editura Eminescu, 1987). In the new millennium, a press in a small Romanian city, Deva, publishes a selection of Whitman’s work three times, in 2001, 2013, and 2015: the book bears the title Fire de iarbă (Leaves of Grass), a selection made by Paulina Popa, a poet from Deva, and was translated by Alimpie Grec. No further information was available about this translator. 289 Masters, Edgar Lee. 1968. Antologia orășelului Spoon River (Ion Caraion, Trans.; Virgil Nemoianu, Foreword). București: EPLU. 290 ***. 1947. Din poezia americană (Al. T. Stamatiad, Trans.; Perpessicius, Foreword). București: Editura Luteția. 215 3.4. Contemporary U.S. and Canadian Poetry in Author-Collections after World War II The end of World War II brought about a wave of new translations from American literature in various cultural periodicals, such as Revista Fundațiilor Regale or the newly established Revista româno-americană, founded by a mixed group of intellectuals that were supposed to represent a collaboration between Marxists and Americans: left-wing Alf Adania and Gheorghiu, alongside their long-time friends Dan Duțescu and Dimitrie Gusti. More and more authors291 are translated by a number of young intellectuals dedicated to opening Romanian culture to the New World: Margareta Sterian, Ion Caraion, George and Monica Dan, Al. T. Stamatiad, Șt. Horia, Barbu Brezianu, Ion Frunzetti, or George Macovescu. Again, “[a]s in previous decades, the most successful translators were writers, especially poets, in their own right.” (Kohn ibid.: 515) 1947 marks a dark year in the history of Romania. After the abdication of King Michael I, the abolition of monarchy and the instauration of the Petru Groza government, Romania entered the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. Many intellectuals were denied publication, were imprisoned, went under political surveillance, or went into hiding. Some others decided it was safer to collaborate with the proletarian Communist party, in spite of its anti-intellectual stance. Talking about the period between 1948 and 1952, marked by the ruthless rule of Foreign Affairs Minister Ana Pauker and leading member of the Communist Party Vasile Luca, Perry states that all the basic policies for Romanians, including the cultural ones, were imposed by Moscow: The few American books that were translated were books previously translated in Moscow, usually from the Russian translation, even when the translator was competent to work from the original language. The critics cited were Russian. The 291 Whitman, Poe, Dickinson, MacLeish, Lindsay, Lowell, St. Vincent Millay, cummings, J.W. Johnson, Masters, Prokosch, Sandburg, Frost, and E.A. Robinson. 216 commentary echoed commentary in the Russian editions. The cues as to which authors to translate came from Moscow. (ibid.: 117) Translation projects started immediately after the end of the war were postponed and books already published were banned. Revista româno-americană had been established in 1926 by the Friends of the United States Foundation, under the aegis of Queen Maria of Romania, but was forced to end its activities in 1941, reopened in 1944 and concluded its operations again in 1947, as a magazine whose first objective was “to present Romanians with the true image of America.” (Croitoru 1999: web) As Drace-Francis notes, The few existing studies on Romanian views of the outside world under the Communist regime tend to treat the early (pre-1965) period and stress the negative light in which the West was portrayed in official propaganda as against an idealised private view. (Drace-Francis 2012: 231) However, efforts by young writers and academics continued. Most of the people who still had the power to bring American literature to Romania were associated with various academic circles: Mihnea Gheorghiu, Leon Levițchi, Dan Duțescu, Geo Bogza, Eugen Schileru, Mihail Bogdan, and others. Besides being paired with translators or, most often, with poet-translators—a customary practice in most publishing companies of that time (Mincan 2012)—young academics begin taking advantage of various exchange opportunities with universities in the States and return to their home country, where they capitalize on translating the literature with which they have come into contact. Literary and cultural journals presented such translators with the possibility of publishing frequently selections of the authors they admired and also served a series of other purposes: “The journals serving either to introduce writers not yet published in book form, to test reader response to certain writers, to follow up on authors already introduced in book form, or to provide critical commentary.” (Perry 2001: 134) The main outlets after 1964 were Secolul XX, Steaua, România literară, Iașiul literar, and Tribuna, which functioned as perfect venues for translation from new 217 contemporary poets.292 Translators took advantage of the fact that translation was seen as “an ethically sound activity, whereas original literary works were subject to censorship and could only be published if they glorified the totalitarian regime.” (Kohn ibid.: 516). Poet-translators used this situation to import cultural capital and to keep an open door to the rest of the world. In Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, Susan Bassnett confirms the role of poets in the Eastern- European bloc: Poets have very different functions in different societies, and this is a factor that translators need to bear in mind. In former Communist Eastern Europe, for example, poetry sold in big print-runs (now replaced by western soft-porn and blockbuster crime novels); poets were significant figures, who often spoke out against injustice and oppression. (1998: 57) Indeed, translation in Romania was also a way to undermine the discourse and censorship of the Communist party and poets were joined in their efforts by important scholars, such as dissident philosopher of culture Noica. In National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceaușescu’s Romania, Katherine Verdery explains that sanctioned translation was doubled by a parallel activity of subversion via translations carried out by Noica’s Cercul de la Păltiniș (an unofficial philosophy discussion and training circle, commonly referred to as ‘the Noica School’ in English) in the 1970s: Translations […] were part of creating a larger public for culture, a sort of raising of the spiritual standard of living, parallel to the state’s claims to raise the material standard of living. At the same time, however, they were like “viruses” loosed into the mechanism by which culture was officially transmitted. They were a form of political action. (1991: 294-295) Such form of political action was too weak to undermine effectively the official discourse and publishing policies, but it was a natural reaction nonetheless, allowed by a short “defrosting” 292 Donald Barthelme, Sylvia Plath, Allen Ginsberg, Denise Levertov, Robert Lowell, Robert Bly, James Merrill, W.S. Merwin, Anne Sexton, William Stafford, John Berryman, Reed Whittemore, James Wright, James Tate, Robert Duncan, Robert Creeley, and Louis Simpson (cf. Perry 2001). 218 from 1964 to 1971—a “crisis” of Marxist legitimation which partially liberated Romania from socialist propaganda. The declaration of independence from the Soviet Union by the Communist Party in 1964 was the beginning of a period of cultural boom, when [t]he Romanian man of letters […] was officially encouraged as nowhere else in Eastern Europe and he made notable progress in recovering synchronization with the West which his forebears had so avidly sought and achieved. This passion to participate in and to contribute significantly to the major literary currents of the day – inspired by an intense nationalism and by a personal hunger in some of the best Romanian literary minds for the broader and more varied world of ideas and art forms, and inspired by the native Romanian genius for experimentation and innovation in art forms and techniques – this passion now returned the Romanian to a meaningful and original participation in the larger literary community. (Perry 2001: 145) Policies for cultural, scientific, and educational exchanges between the United States and Romania were put into place, and in 1964 the legations of both nations were promoted to full embassies. As a result, the range of authors and modes broadens, although the publication policies remain basically the same. Poets like Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot,293 Ezra Pound,294 Frank O’Hara, Jack Kerouac, Theodore Roethke, William Stanley Merwin, and W.D. Snodgrass295 were all translated and published in book form. A substantial selection296 from the poetry of T.S. Eliot translated by Ștefan Augustin Doinaș, Virgil Nemoianu, and Toma Pavel, was included in the first issue of Secolul XX in 1965. A second selection translated by Doinaș and Pavel was published in a critical essay signed by Virgil Nemoianu. 293 Eliot, T.S. 1970. Selected (Aurel Covaci, Trans., Nichita Stănescu, Foreword). București: Editura Albatros. 294 Pound, Ezra. 1975. Cantos și alte poeme (Ion Caraion, Trans., Vasile Nicolescu, Foreword). București: Univers; Pound, Ezra. 1983. Cantos (Virgil Teodorescu, Petronela Negoșanu, Trans. and Postface; Vasile Nicolescu, Foreword). Iași: Junimea. 295 Snodgrass, W. D. 1983. Un ghimpe în inimă și alte poezii (Ioan A. Popa, Trans. and notes). București: Univers. 296 Eliot. T.S. 1965. “Cântecul de dragoste al lui J. Alfred Prufrock”, “Preludii”, “Ce a spus tunetul” (Șt. A. Doinaș and Pavel, T., Trans.) and “Marina” (Șt. A. Doinaș, Nemoianu, V., Trans.). In Secolul XX 1. 219 Dan Grigorescu, a reputed Romanian specialist in Anglo-American Studies and a manager of the Arts Department within the State Committee for Arts and Culture, published an influential volume of essays titled Thirteen American Writers, in which he analysed “writers whose work [he] deemed paramount for modern American literature” and which left aside “writers to whom Romanian critics have been dedicating substantial analyses […].” (1968: 6) Among the thirteen writers, Grigorescu included Poe, Whitman, Longfellow, Dickinson, Pound, and Frost. In the 1970s, he is transferred as a lecturer to Portland State University and to the University of California, Los Angeles, where he came in further contact with contemporary American literature. He is also known for having been the founder of the Romanian Library in New York City. Other intellectuals of that time took advantage of the Fulbright Program that had been in place since 1946: Mihail Bogdan received a Fulbright fellowship at the East Texas State University, Virgil Nemoianu—translator of Denise Levertov and Whittermore in Steaua—receieved his doctorate from the University of California in San Diego. In their turn, American poets like W.R. Snodgrass and Diana Wakoski went to Romania through the Exchange Program in 1963 and 1964. Author collections were usually translated either by Romanian poets alone, or by Romanian poets in collaboration with university professors known for their scholarship in the field of English and/or American Studies and Literature. For example, Wallace Stevens’ World as Meditation297, Theodor Roethke’s Selected Poems298, William Merwin’s Poems of the Seventies: Selected Poems, 1963-1973299, and Frank O’Hara’s Meditations in an Emergency300 were all four translated by Constantin Abăluță and Ștefan Stoenescu for the same publisher, Univers Press. A recent interview 297 Stevens, Wallace. 1970. Lumea ca meditație (Constantin Abăluță, Ștefan Stoenescu, Trans.). București: Univers. 298 Roethke, Theodore. 1973. Vorbe pentru vânt (Constantin Abăluță, Ștefan Stoenescu, Trans.). București: Univers. 299 Merwin, W. S. 1977. Poemele deceniului șapte: Versuri alese, 1963-73 (Constantin Abăluță, Ștefan Stoenescu, Trans.). București: Univers. 300 O’Hara, Frank. 1980. Meditații în imponderabil (Constantin Abăluță, Ștefan Stoenescu, Trans.). București: Univers. 220 (Mincan id.) with Denisa Comănescu, a former editor for Univers and currently the Executive Director of Humanitas Fiction, reveals that pairing a translator with a specialist in British or American Studies was a common practice of that time. Such teams were commonly referred to as “colectiv de traducere” (translation committee) and were meant to be a guarantee for the translation’s accuracy, as well as for the thoroughness of the paratexts. Abăluță and Stoenescu’s background in American poetry translation, mostly grown under the umbrella of Univers Press, influenced Minerva Press’s decision-makers to commission them for the translation of Serge Fauchereau’s Introduction to Modern American Poetry in 1974.301 The interest shown by Univers in publishing contemporary U.S. poetry continued with selections from Sylvia Plath’s work,302 translated by poet and translator Vasile Nicolescu, alongside Diane Wakoski’s The Magellanic Clouds,303 translated by poet and creative writing lecturer Liliana Ursu. 3.5. Contemporary U.S. and Canadian Poets in Anthologies during Communism Canadian poetry owes greatly to Romanian émigré poet Nicholas Catanoy (or Nicolae Cătănoiu by his Romanian name). In his translator’s note to the anthology of contemporary English Canadian poetry304—one of the three anthologies of Canadian poetries ever assembled and translated into Romanian—translator and anthologist Ion Caraion explains that the driving force behind that compilation was Catanoy, “this strange enthusiast and hopeless poet.” (1978: 5) Shortly 301 Fauchereau, Serge. 1974. Introducere în poezia americană modernă (Traducere, prefaţă şi tabel cronologic de Ştefan Stoenescu; Traducerea versurilor de C. Abăluţă şi Şt. Stoenescu; Notă bio-bibliografică de Teodor Vârgolici.) București: Editura Minerva. 302 Plath, Sylvia. 1980. Ariel și alte poeme (Vasile Nicolescu, Trans.). București: Univers. 303 Wakoski, Diane. 1981. Norii magelanici (Liliana Ursu, Trans.). București: Univers. 304 ***. 1978. Poeți canadieni contemporani (de limbă engleză) (Ion Caraion, Trans.). București: Albatros. 221 after his arrival in Canada, circa 1968, Catanoy came up with the idea of such an anthology, which Caraion put together only about ten years later. The description of the Romanian émigré is quite veracious: he has often been characterized as a ‘phenomenon’ that is hardly ever pinned down appropriately; a doctor and philosopher by profession and a globetrotter and a cosmopolitan by nature, he never felt at home in any foreign culture, but always wanted to incorporate these cultures and these languages in his own work: “The wish of this polyglot is to rebuild one single language, an integrating matrix for all things and phenomena, a universal vehicle which would carry his ideas across without any translation hurdles to the farthest corners of the world.” (Mițariu 2009: 239) Translation is an integral part of his work and reflects his perpetual mal du pays: in 1977 he published the second anthology of Romanian poetry in North America,305 in which he included 53 poets, selected “not on academic grounds, as he confesses, but according to his personal taste.” (ibid.: 244). For Walum Olum. Cântecele și proverbele indienilor din America de Nord (Walum Olum. The Songs and Proverbs of Native Peoples in North America),306 Catanoy collaborated with translators Virgil Teodorescu and Petronela Negoșanu. It opens with a preface and a foreword by Catanoy, who offers the rationale for gathering the 107 songs and proverbs that were representative of 33 tribes, and also the mechanics of assembling the anthology. Although the title refers to a North-American selection, the short preface reveals that most of the texts had been gathered by Catanoy himself over twelve years and reflect the folklore of natives from various reservations, “either from the north-east coast of the continent, especially from the Canadian Maritimes, or from the north- 305 ***. 1977. Modern Romanian Poetry. An Anthology (Nicholas Catanoy, Ed.) Oakville, ON: Mosaic Press. 306 ***. 1981. Walum Olum. Cântecele și proverbele indienilor din America de Nord (Virgil Teodorescu and Petronela Negoșanu, Trans.). Cluj-Napoca: Dacia Press. 222 [western]307 coast, namely the province of British Columbia.” (1981: 5) The eleven-page introduction puts forward an analysis of the texts that mirrors his background as a poet and outlines the history, themes, motifs, and poetic devices and features apparent in native literature in general and in his anthology in particular. In tackling the limitations of his endeavor, he admits to a modus operandi that fits the patterns traced in translations from U.S. poetry in the early 20th century: “Moreover, for this anthology we have only selected those songs that are comprehensible to our sensibility and lyrical universe.” (ibid.: 6) Unlike Caraion, Catanoy does not make any specific reference to the two translators and only briefly and indirectly tackles the issue of translation when he refers to the limitations of his endeavor: “Stylization was needed whenever the asperities of the literal [translation] impeded on the musicality or whenever the long and obsessive choruses dislocated textual harmony.” (id.) He concedes that the original texts were sometimes modified and does not even mention translations per se, but uses ‘literal text’ for ‘literal translation’. Furthermore, the anthologist sees no problem in manhandling essential features of native poetry, such as ‘long and obsessive choruses’, and makes any domesticating alterations that he sees fit, most probably on the literal renditions offered by the two translators. I would argue that the apparent lack of attention to translation on his part is not a demeaning stance, but only one that sees the act of translating foreign literary productions as natural for any literature. As Mițariu aptly notes, Catanoy had committed to “a courageous attempt at bringing the cultural patrimony of a native population to light,” (ibid.: 244) an attempt which was motivated by the fact that Catanoy identified himself in a way with “these outcasts of a hyper-ethnical North-American society, packed in reservations.” (id.) 307 The foreword wrongly uses “north-eastern.” 223 Mițariu also advances that the spiritual world of the native populations might have borne similarities with the archaic world of witchcraft in his home culture. Catanoy’s role in creating an awareness of Canadian poetry began the moment he emigrated to Canada. Following his émigré friend’s suggestion, Caraion authored an anthology of English language Canadian poets, in which he played a multiple role: he made the selection, translated the poems into Romanian, and wrote the preface. The anthologist’s preface notes that fragments had been previously published in various literary journals, along with poems by French Canadian poets. Caraion acknowledged two other anthologies from the same literature and qualified his own endeavor as “only quite a modest selection.” (ibid.: 6) His foreword contains a critical apparatus that analyzes the translated poems within the work of the respective author, a natural choice for the literary critic. It also traces a common feature of their work: “[…] the rigorous consistency with which most of Canadian poets insist not on a word, not on a concept, not on an idea, but on a true existential meaning and on a set of gnosiological implications expressed through the term consciousness.” (ibid.: 7). Each batch of translations is preceded by a short biography and analysis of that poet’s work. Caraion’s roster includes poets born at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, some even younger, such as Margaret Atwood. The most generous selection is from Irving Layton’s work, followed by Fred Cogswell, Lionel Kearns, John Newlove, and Michael J. Yates. Leonard Cohen (whose last name is misspelled and reads Coehn) is listed among the poets he did not include, along with Elizabeth Brewster, Clarence Major, Henry Beissel and others. The anthologist confessed that he would like to publish stand-alone collections dedicated to each of the poets he failed to include. 224 Interestingly enough, the other three volumes— Înțelegând zăpada. 60 poeți canadieni de limbă engleză (1977),308 Antologie de poezie canadiană de limbă franceză309 (1978), and Steaua marilor lacuri. 45 poeți canadieni de limbă franceză310 (1981) are published around the same date, done by translators typically associated with contemporary poetry translation, and published by different publishers, which is probably another indication of the personal nature of each of these projects. In each case, the translators are the ones who did the selection, the translations, and put together the preface. However, the anthology published by Univers appears to be one of their 2,007 titles meant to bring valuable world literature into the local literature. This anthology precedes all the projects related to Catanoy, but it includes Catanoy himself among the selected Canadian poets. The 1977 anthology by Teodorescu and Negoșanu does not acknowledge his role, or anybody’s role for that matter: the translators’ note is simply an overview of Canadian literature that aims at establishing whether it brings something new compared to the British one, but Catanoy’s presence among the selected authors is perhaps another indication of the latter’s involvement in the project. The beginnings of Canadian contemporary poetry translated into Romanian are presented below (Figure 18a) and disclose two different translation programs: one interested exclusively in contemporary poets (Caraion, for Albatros) and one that encompasses both modern311 and contemporary poets (Teodorescu and Negoșanu, for Univers). Published only one year apart, thus most probably conceived at the same time, and with different publishers than the anthologists collaborated with for other projects, the selection of the authors reveals two different types of 308 ***. 1977. Înţelegând zăpada. 60 de poeţi canadieni de limbă engleză (Antologare, traducere, prefaţă şi note de Virgil Teodorescu şi Petronela Negoşanu). București: Univers. 309 ***. 1978. Antologie de poezie canadiană de limbă franceză (Selecție, prefață și traducere de Al. Andrițoiu și Ursula Șchiopu. București: Minerva. 310 ***. 1981. Steaua marilor lacuri. 45 poeți canadieni de limbă franceză. Antologare, traducere, prefaţă şi note de Virgil Teodorescu şi Petronela Negoşanu. 1981. București: Univers. 311 I have not included modern poets in this graph. 225 agency. Univers, known for its interest in both modern and contemporary literature and for the effectiveness in carrying out such large-scale projects, most likely commissioned Teodorescu and Negoșanu, translators who otherwise consistently collaborated with Dacia Press, because Caraion was putting together his own selection to be published with Albatros a year later. Furthermore, as we explain further on, Caraion publishes his next anthology (this time of contemporary American poetry) with Univers one year later, which is another indication that the Canadian poetry anthology was his own endeavor and was not commissioned by the publisher. There are thirteen Canadian poets included in both anthologies (Figure 18b), thus they are central nodes with equal values in all three measurements (cf. Annex 5). The best positioned nodes overall are the ones in the Univers anthology due to their more numerous vicinities. The whole graph consists of 48 poets, with 27% of the nodes in both anthologies, a percentage that attests both to the different programs of the two titles, and to the prominence of poets like Romania-born Irving Layton or young Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje in the cultural networks of the late 1970s. 226 Figure 18a. Anthologies of contemporary Canadian poetry before 1989. 227 Figure 18b. Contemporary Canadian poets selected both by Univers and Albatros 228 The equal values of many of the nodes in this graph result from the equal weight assigned to the edges. Had I factored in the number of poems selected for each of these authors, the values would have been different. However, since this research focuses on translators’s agency, I would have taken a great risk in doing so, especially in the case of the Univers anthology, where the involvement of the translators in the selection is not clear, so I compared the EigenVector values with the number of poems selected by Caraion for each of the fourteen poets: EigenVector = 0.1386 Albatros Univers EigenVector = 0.1386 Albatros Univers Dorothy Livesay 4 3 Barbara Caruso 3 3 John Robert Colombo 2 4 Andreas Schroeder 7 4 Lionel Kearns 17 3 Michael Ondaatje 4 3 Irving Layton 20 5 Margaret Atwood 7 4 John Newlove 16 4 Tom Marshall 11 4 J. M. Yates 13 4 Alfred Purdy 2 1 Fred Cogswell 18 3 Louis Dudek 4 6 Table 2. Number of poems per contemporary author in the Albatros and Univers anthologies of Canadian poetry The distribution of poems per author shows great discrepancies between the two projects: while the Univers anthology generally contains selections of three or four poems per author, the anthology compiled by Caraion selects as few as two and as many as twenty poems per poet, a clear expression of the anthologist’s personal taste. Thus it is safe to conclude that the two anthologies of contemporary English-language Canadian poetry ever compiled in Romania were as much the result of an institutional cultural agenda as they were the expression of a poet-translator’s personal taste and the outcome of a network whose driving force was poet Nicholas Catanoy. As far as American poets are concerned, anthologies played a salient role in Romanians’ becoming familiar with their work and were put together or simply suggested mostly by writers and professors who benefited from academic mobility programs financed by the U.S. government. The first such translation project was curated by Margareta Sterian, translator and anthologist of An 229 Anthology of Modern American Poetry from Whitman to the Present312. Sterian was also a reputed poet and painter, one of the leaders of the generation of the 1930s. Her anthology was published by the State Press only two years after her own poetry debut, but the whole print run was burnt in 1947 by the pro-Soviet regime. The anthology presents the work of poets313 that were new to the Romanians and was re-published in 1973 under the title I Hear America Singing. An Anthology of Modern American Poetry.314 This latter revised edition reveals the history of the anthology, which was initially suggested to Sterian by Petru Comarnescu. For this revised edition, the anthologist adds thirteen poets that were born between the two world wars, such as Gary Snyder, Allen Ginsberg, or Gwendolyn Brooks, and confesses in the translator’s note that the main criterion was her personal taste, followed by the selected poets’ stature in American literature. Sterian also discusses translation proper and explains that her guiding principle was observing the original meter and, as much as possible, the rhyme, without trying to adapt the poems to match “our Romanian poetic spirit” (1973: 11) and admits to revising many of the initial translations that had been published in 1946. The note also acknowledges the role played by the publisher in reviving the translation project and professionally mentions the sources used for authors’ biographies. However, the book exudes its translator’s personality: its unusual large format recalls that of an art book; the soft, porous paper is reminiscent of that used for watercolor painting; and the text is interspersed by tasteful illustrations selected by the translator herself. Also, the illustration on the cover bears her signature 312 ***. 1946. Antologie a poesiei americane moderne de la Whitman la contemporani (Margareta Sterian, Trans.). București: Editura de Stat. 313 Robinson Jeffers, Stephen Vincent Benet, Maxwell Bodenheim, Elizabeth Coatsworth, Stephen Crane, William Everson, Merrill Moore, Ogden Nash, Kenneth Patchen, Lola Ridge, Muriel Rukeyser, Stickney Trumbull, Jean and Louis Untermeyer, and William Carlos Williams. 314 ***. 1973. Aud cântând America. Antologie a poeziei americane moderne (Margareta Sterian, Trans. Petru Comarnescu, Foreword). Cluj: Dacia Press. 230 and is titled “The Michigan Brass Band.” Moreover, one of the very few analyses dedicated to her work as a translator confirm the personal nature of her projects: The poet’s translations, when not commissioned or requested by her need to practice, follow […] the road of self-discovery. Technically exact and poetically inspired, their intention was to impose the free spirit of America […], turning her into a pioneer in this field in 1947. (Crețu 2007: 363) Thirty two years later, the anthology was re-published by Alicat Press (2005), owned by Anca Vlad, a prosperous business woman, owner of a pharmaceutical distribution company. Various press releases indicate that the objective of this publishing company was “to promote Romanian modern and contemporary painting and literature by publishing original works, all of them exquisitely designed.” (web315) The first two titles they launched are Sterian’s Selected Poems (1945-1987) and Aud cântând America, with a preface by Professor Dan Grigorescu and illustrations selected from Sterian’s “New York Snippets” painting collection. This third edition may seem haphazard, but I found out that Anca Vlad was one of the translator’s friends during her student years and also an avid art collector and admirer of the painter’s work (Tronaru 2007). These details turn the story into only one of the many examples of private arts patronage that became the norm in poetry translation during the years after the Romanian revolution, as we will later see. They are also relevant for the type of relationships that translators establish often with influent and affluent private individuals outside dedicated institutions. Last but not least, the fourth republication316 of the anthology took place in 2017 and reinforced the value and the relevance of Sterian’s selection seventy-one years after its first edition. 315 Cărți-eveniment ale primăverii 2005, Amos News. Web: http://bit.ly/2H8vCxO. Last accessed: July 19, 2017. 316 ***. 2017. Aud cântând America. Antologie a poeziei americane moderne / I Hear American Singing. Anthology of Modern American Poetry. București: Contemporary Literature Press. http://bit.ly/2H8vCxO 231 The second anthology presenting contemporary poets in translation—Din poezia engleză și americană (1970)—was curated by philosopher, poet, playwright and novelist Lucian Blaga. The edition published in 2012 by Humanitas Press317 (which re-publish two older anthologies318 put together by Blaga in one single volume) reveals the rationale behind his venture as an anthologist in În loc de prefață (Instead of a Preface): “I was not interested in their number. I was interested in their carats,” (9) he says of the way he made the selection. “I selected authors from foreign anthologies, however best I could and whenever I had the occasion,” (id.) he confesses about his sources. He also explains what translation meant to him and why he selected certain texts and not others: By translating, I quenched a tremendous thirst. By translating, I became richer in experiences. I wanted to see the extent to which poetry can travel from one language to another. By translating, I felt myself growing. Because I have been brooding only those poems which delighted me and which, through the act of translation, could become in a way mine, ours, could belong to the Romanians. (2012: 9-10) Further selections from American poetry appear in Anatol E. Baconsky’s Panorama poeziei universale (A Panorama of Universal Poetry, 1973), considered by Cernat (2006) and numerous other Romanian critics as “fundamental” for the evolution of recent Romanian literature. Out of the 99 poets selected on the grounds of the “Meridiane lirice” publishing program, eight are American: Eliot, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Caldwell, Sandburg, Dickinson, Miller, and Capote. All translations belong to Baconsky, an effort for which he received the prize of the Romanian Writers’ Union the same year. The anthology followed the critically-acclaimed stand-alone volume he translated from Carl Sandburg319. 317 ***. 2012. Patru milenii de poezie în tălmăcirea lui Lucian Blaga (Lucian Blaga, Trans.). București: Humanitas. 318 Din lirica universală (Editura pentru literatură, 1957) and Din lirica engleză (Univers, 1970). 319 Sandburg, Carl. 1965. Versuri (A. E. Baconsky, Trans.). București: Editura Tineretului. 232 A comprehensive anthology in two volumes appeared between 1977 and 1978, a project edited by Leon Levițchi and Tudor Dorin: An Anthology of American Poetry from the Beginnings to the Present Day.320 The 84 authors321 presented in the second volume cover an impressive time span (1912-1977), but the selection of the poems is poor and translation is often improper. Although translated by Leon Levițchi, a reputed specialist in English Studies, along with Tudor Dorin, an excellent translator of Rudyard Kipling, among others, the general impression is that of a hasty execution. Another example is the anthology curated by poet, essayist and translator Ion Caraion: The Anthology of American Poetry322, a selection of poems by one hundred and thirty American authors323 translated by Mihnea Gheorgiu, Petru Solomon, Emil Gulian, Vasile Nicolescu, and 320 ***. 1978. Antologie de poezie americană de la începuturi până azi (Leon Levițchi and Tudor Dorin, Eds.; Dan Grigorescu, Foreword and Chronology). 2 volumes. București: Editura Minerva. 321 Edgar Lee Masters; Willa Sibert Cather; Robert Frost; Amy Lowell; Carl Sandburg; Vachel Lindsey; Wallace Stevens; William Carlos Williams; Sara Teasdale; Elizabeth Madox Roberts; Ezra Pound; Louis Untermeyer; Elinor Wylie; William Rose Benét; John Gould Fletcher ; Hilda Doolittle; Roy Helton ; Robinson Jeffers; Marianne Moore; T.S. Eliot; John Crowe Ransom; Conrad Aiken; Edna St. Vincent Millay; Archibald MacLeish; Elizabeth Coatsworth; E.E. Cummings; Mark Van Doren; Babette Deutsch; Robert Hillyer; Louise Bogan; Stephen Vincent Benét; Hart Crane; Leonie Adams; Allen Tate; Robert Francis; Laura Riding; Kenneth Fearing; Langston Hughes; Ogden Nash; Maria Zaturenska; Merrill Moore; Richard Eberhart; Stanley Kunitz; Phyllis McGinley; Robert Penn Warren; W.H. Auden; Theodore Roethke; Richard Wright; James Agee; Edwin Rolfe; Winfield Townley Scott; Elizabeth Bishop; May Sarton; Karl Jay Shapiro; Randall Jarrell; John Berryman; William Stafford; Thomas McGrath; Peter Viereck; Robert Lowell; William Jay Smith; Lawrence Ferlinghetti; Reed Whittemore; Howard Nemerov; Eleanor Glenn Wallis; Richard Wilbur; Thomas Cole; Denise Levertov; Louis Simpson; Marvin Solomon; Philip Murray; Donald Justice; John Ashbery; Robert Bly; Allen Ginsberg; W.D. Snodgrass; James Wright; Galway Kinnel; W.S. Merwin; Gregory Corso; Gary Snyder; Sylvia Plath; LeRoi Jones; Diane Wakoski 322 ***. 1979. Antologie de poezie americană (Alcătuită de Ion Caraion; Tălmăciri de: Ion Caraion, Vasile Nicolescu, Mihnea Gheorghiu, Petre Solomon şi Emil Gulian; Note bio-bibliografice de Petre Solomon). București: Univers. 323 130 poets, from Anne Bradstreet (1612-72) to the present day: Anne Bradstreet, Edward Taylor, Phillip Freneau, Joel Barlow, W. C. Bryant, R. W. Emerson, J. G. Whittier, H. D. Thoreau, H. W. Longfellow, E. A. Poe, J. R. Lowell, Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Trumbull Stickney, William W. Moody, Edwin Markham, Stephen Crane, Edward Lee Masters, E.A. Robinson, Robert Frost, Vachel Lindsay, Carl Sandburg, James Oppenheim, Williams Carlos Williams, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, Amy Lowell, Jean Starr Untermeyer, Marianne Moore, Hart Crane, T.S. Eliot, Robinson Jeffers, Conrad Aiken, Stephen Vincent Benét, Sara Teasdale, Elinor Wylie, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Merril Moore, Archibald MacLeish, E.E. Cummings, J.G. Fletcher, J.C. Ransom, Allen Tate, Hilda Doolittle, Louise Bogan, Horace Gregory, John Peale Bishop, W.H. Auden, Genevieve Taggard, Michael Gold, Kenneth Fearing, Louis Zukofsky, Muriel Rukeyser, Kenneth Patchen, Richard Eberhart, Elizabeth Bishop, Stanley Kunitz, Kenneth Rexroth, Theodore Roethke, Karl Shapiro, Randall Jarrell, Oscar Williams, Ogden Nash, Robert Penn Warren, Edouard Roditi, John Berryman, William Stafford, Robert Lowell, Delmore Schwartz, Reed Whittemore, Richard Wilbur, Peter Viereck, Howard Nemerov, William Jay Smith, Joseph Langland, Anthony Hecht, Denise Levertov, Louis Simpson, James Dickey, Edgar Bowers, Donald Justice, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Robert Duncan, Charles Olson, Gregory Corso, Allen Ginsberg, James Merrill, Frank 233 Caraion himself. The anthologist belonged to a generation of young poets that had been affected by the war, disillusioned with the old poetic techniques that still prevailed during the Communist years, and animated by an energising rebellion against the Marxist doctrine and values imposed through the formal education system. “My name is Ion Caraion and I am one of those writers that can no longer be ushered away from Romanian literature by any party, dictator, bullets, or scoundrels and toads with the official media,”324 he boldly stated in 1982, bitterly reminiscing about the years spent in Communist detention from 1950 to 1955 and then again from 1958 to 1964. After he was released from prison, he started to publish frantically, trying to make up for the lost time: Tormented as I was by the years that had been stolen from me, by the manuscripts they had confiscated from me and destroyed, by the heart-breaking complex that I would not have enough time to write, obsessed by the idea that my message might have been stifled again […] I didn’t have any other solution, but to work tremendously, 14-16 hours a day, so that I can leave an oeuvre behind.325 As a result, he published twenty volumes of poetry, six volumes of essays and literary critique, and an impressive number of translations. For Masters’ Antologia orăşelului Spoon River he received the Prize of the Writers’ Union, then continued with the translation of Pound’s Cantos and finished the series of translations from American literature with the above-mentioned anthology. This project, however, may not have been solely his initiative. Published by Univers and bringing together renditions by five translators, the 1979 anthology fit perfectly the publication program the press was committed to, but may have been, in a way influenced, by the similar Canadian project run by O’Hara, Paul Blackburn, Robert Creeley, Kenneth Koch, W.D. Snoddgrass, A.R. Ammons, Robert Bly, W.S. Merwin, Galway Kinnell, John Ashbery, Adrienne Rich, Adrienne Rich, James Wrights, Joel Oppenheimer, X.Y. Kennedy, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, Donald Hall, Gary Snyder, John Unterecker, John Haines, John Wieners, Victor Contoski, Dave Etter, Stephen Sandy, Robert Mezey, Robert Kelly, Emmet Jarrett, Nancy Willard, Diane Wakoski, Alex Raybin, Jack Anderson, James Weldon Johnson, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Angelina Grimké, Fenton Johnson, Georgia Douglas Johnson, Claude McKay, Frank Horne, Langston Hughes, Arna Bontemps, Countee Cullen, Waring Cuney, Richard Wright, LeRoi Jones, Clarence Major, Julia Fields, Horace Julian Bond, and Carl Wendell Hines, Jr. 324 Insectele tovarășului Hitler. București: Editura Ion Dumitru-Verlag, 1982. 325 Alex. Leo Șerban. 2003. “La o nouă lectură: Ion Caraion.” In România literară 11. Web: http://bit.ly/2r8dFsp. Last accessed: August 20, 2017. http://bit.ly/2r8dFsp 234 Caraion the year before. In any case, all these names associated with translations from American and Canadian contemporary poets form a tightly-knit network of poet-translators committed to connecting these cultures either through projects commissioned by reputed publishers with a consistent program or through their own resourcefulness and extended network of acquaintances. Unlike Caraion, Virgil Teodorescu did not translate out of a need to react to the political regime and to update poetic techniques that had been in place for too long. One of the most renowned Surrealist poets, he was famous for his “monotonous nonconformism,” and for his books resembling “the rich harvest of a peace-loving and thorough cultivator.” (Ștefănescu, 2002: web) Ștefănescu explains that he combined systematic study with important positions in the Communist cultural diagram: editor-in-chief of Luceafărul, president of the Writers Union, vice-president of the Great National Assembly. Interestingly enough, his co-translator, Petronela Negoșanu, was an editor of Steaua in Cluj who had spent two years in a correctional facility for “public agitation” at the same time with Ion Caraion. What is even more interesting is that hers and Teodorescu’s translation projects are very similar to Caraion’s: in 1980 they published American Contemporary Poetry,326 followed by Pound’s Cantos in 1983. Their anthology of American poetry was the first one which breaks with modernism and focuses only on contemporary poets.327 Although limited by the small format of the Cele mai frumoase poezii series of Albatros Press, the translators dedicated a one page presentation to each of the 34 poets. Selections vary between four and eleven pages and are 326 ***. 1980. Lirică americană contemporană (Virgil Teodorescu, Petronela Negoșanu, Trans. and Foreword). București: Albatros. 327 William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, Babette Deutsch, Kenneth Rexroth, Theodor Roethke, Kenneth Patchen, Charles Olson, William Stafford, James Laughlin, Peter Viereck, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Robert Duncan, Jack Kerouac, James Dickey, Daniel Hoffman, Denise Levertov, Donald Justice, Bob Kaufman, Kenneth Koch, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Creeley, W.D. Snodgrass, Robert Bly, Frank O’Hara, James Merrill, John Ashbery, Barbara Guest, Philip Lamantia, James Wright, W.S. Merwin, Gregory Corso, Joel Oppenheimer, Gary Snyder, Tom Raworth. 235 preceded by a clear and comprehensive preface, which outlines the main directions in American contemporary poetry. The last anthology of American poetry put together before 1989 belongs to poet Mircea Ivănescu,328 forerunner of Romanian postmodernism. Modern and Contemporary American Poetry329 is the most comprehensive and well executed translation project that has ever been published in Romania, a status confirmed by the many republications of his translations. Most importantly, the sole responsibility for a project of such breadth lay with the translator. Influenced by the poetry of Frank O’Hara and other poets affiliated with the New York School, Ivănescu left behind an impressive number of translations from T.S. Eliot, John Berryman, James Joyce, William Faulkner, and many others (exclusively in periodicals), alongside this anthology that gathered relevant samples from the work of 43 poets. In it, he offered generous space to Pound, Eliot, cummings, Berryman, Lowell, and Plath, and made up to the others through relevant notes and substantial commentaries. The preface signed by Ștefan Stoenescu resonates with Mathew Arnold, according to whom “one cannot do informed literary criticism unless, besides mastering your national tradition quasi-exhaustively, you are also familiar with at least one other modern literature in detail.” (Stoenescu 1986: 5) He also added that literatures should not opt for unlimited continentalism, nor for total insularization, but for the plural and relative metaphor of the “archipelago,” such as the Anglophone one. 328 ***. 1986. Poezie americană modernă și contemporană. Selecție, traducere, note și comentarii de Mircea Ivănescu. (Ștefan Stoenescu, Foreword). Cluj Napoca: Dacia. 329 Edwing Arlington Robinson, Robert Frost, Amy Lowell, Carl Sandburg, Wallace Stevens, Vachel Lindsay, William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, Robinson Jeffers, Marianne Moore, John Crowe Ransom, T.S. Eliot, E.E. Cumings, Conrad Aiken, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Archibald MacLeish, Hart Crane, Allen Tate, Stanley Kunitz, Charles Olson, William Stafford, Delmore Schwartz, Muriel Rukeyser, Weldon Kees, Randall Jarrell, John Berryman, Robert Lowell, Robert Duncan, Howard Nemerov, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, Alan Dugan, Denise Levertov, Edward Field, Carolyn Kizer, Donald Justice, Lisel Mueller, John Ashbery, W.S. Merwin, Anne Sexton, Richard Howard, Adrienne Rich, and Sylvia Plath. 236 The last interview given by Mircea Ivănescu to poet Radu Vancu in March 2011 (Vancu 2014: web), only a few months before his passing, revealed the mechanisms that fueled his work as a translator. First, as a student, he took advantage of the fact that one of his relatives was a librarian for the French Library at the University of Bucharest, and he borrowed books that were normally banned by the Party, hidden in “a bookcase with the display window covered in blue paper” (Vancu ibid.): Gide, Valéry, Giraudoux, or Cocteau. Later, as an editor for Agerpres, the news agency of the Communist Party, Ivănescu became familiar with various periodicals in Western Europe, especially in France and Great Britain, such as New Republic. This is how he came to read Jack Kerouac in French for the first time, for example, but he also brushed up his English and started reading American writers in the original. Finally, a third mechanism that underlined his work as a poet and translator was his network of friends: Matei Călinescu, who received a Fulbright fellowship at the Iowa University and never returned, but maintained a continuous dialogue with him on various topics pertaining to contemporary literature; Denisa Comănescu, an editor for Univers Press at that time, who helped him publish a translation that he had been brooding over for many years: James Joyce’s Ulysses; George Serafin, his editor-in-chief at Agerpress, who would bring him a massive anthology of American poetry when he returned from one of his many trips abroad. Asked by Vancu why he chose to translate American poetry, Ivănescu answered that the trigger had been his friendship with one of the editors of Dacia Press, Vasile Igna (himself also a poet), and further explained: [Igna] told me at a certain point Let’s do this [an anthology]. They had already published an anthology of modern German poetry, made under similar circumstances, that is, proposed by one single person; so I made a list and I offered to put together an anthology of American poetry and an anthology of British poetry. And he said OK, let’s do this. And so it happened that we did both. (Vancu ibid.) 237 Ivănescu also confessed that he strongly preferred American poetry to French poetry, although he had been thoroughly trained in French language and literature, and that all his work as a translator was a matter of circumstances, a happenstance. He revealed in the same interview that he chose to translate poets that resonated with him, confessional ones, like Anne Sexton, John Berryman, or Meryl Moore and disclosed that even Stoenescu, the author of the preface, was surprised by his selection. Although not an anthology per se, Marin Sorescu’s Tratat de inspirație330 (Inspiration Treatise) reunites translations from one hundred twenty poets from all over the world in an attempt to answer a series of questions related to the essence of poetry and to the best practices in poetry writing. Widely translated abroad, Sorescu took part in numerous literary events on all continents, where he interviewed writers on the craft of poetry: Like a Romanian poetry’s “ministry of foreign affairs” of sorts, Marin Sorescu took part in a slew of international literary happenings, and he did not return empty handed. On a paper napkin or in a small notebook, as conditions allowed, the poet wrote down with a diligence almost stripped of any kind of pride, musings that many of today’s good poets entrusted him with, be it on a ship, at a café, or on a bus. (Pruteanu 1986: web). The work he put into interviewing poets and making selections from their work was equated by Sorescu to a unique chance for “landlocked” cultures to connect to others through translation. Out of the one hundred twenty poets, eight331 are American and complete the network of U.S. contemporary poets that appear in anthologies (Figure 19) before 1989: 330 Sorescu, Marin. 1985. Tratat de inspirație. Craiova: Scrisul românesc. 331 Paul Engle, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, A. Ginsberg, Michael March, Peter Meinke, W.S. Merwin, Dana Naone, and Mark Strand. 238 Figure 19. Network of U.S. poets published in anthologies before 1989. 239 Eliot, Pound, cummings, Whitman, Lowell, Berryman, O’Hara, Ginsberg, or Corso played a very important role in the education of the so-called generation of the 1980s (Crăciun 2002, Vakulovski 2010) and their influence still continues today. Vancu’s interview with Ivănescu and Sorescu’s treatise speak volumes about the influence and the practice of poetry translation in Romania before the 1989 revolution: although apparently organized around institutions, such as literary journals and presses controlled by the party in power, I hope to have shown how the taste of the poets and their networks of friends played an essential role in initiating, executing, and disseminating such translation projects. The network of contemporary U.S. poets in anthologies before 1989 is a highly connected graph of 123 poet-nodes, which presents the small world effect. It shows us that translator- anthologists were paying attention to each other’s work and also manifested a preference for certain poets (cf. Annex 6), one which does not necessarily coincide with publishers’ interests and which in many ways changed after the revolution (cf. section 4.2.). Node centrality points to W.S. Merwin as a preferred poet, followed by Allen Ginsberg, T.S. Eliot, John Ashbery, Denise Levertov, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Theodore Roethke, Gary Snyder, D. Justice, and W.E. Stafford. Of these poets only W.S. Merwin, T.S. Eliot, and T. Roethke were published in dedicated volumes, which is another proof of translators’ attention to the local and foreign literary scene. As far as the anthologists are concerned, their selection of poets influenced their place in the analysed network, with Ion Caraion positioned first (EigenVector = 0.5290) and Ivănescu fourth (EigenVector = 0.2017). However, the anthology put together by Ivănescu is referenced most often even to this day and suggests that the amplitude of an anthologist’s persona contributed more to the visibility of the anthology than the selection itself. 240 One may easily notice the thoroughness of these endeavors and the popularity of anthologies before 1989. They were a strong argument made by poets about the need for Romanian culture to open towards world literature, as well as a gesture of defiance towards an oppressive political regime. Not only did these anthologies express their curators’ taste, but they also, and much more so, were a reflection of these poets’ vision for the future of their literature. The following chapter will investigate whether this type of agency changed once democracy took over Romania. 241 CHAPTER 4. ORDER OUT OF CHAOS: THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE COMPLEX POETRY TRANSLATION NETWORK AFTER 1989 The fall of the Communist regime following the revolution in December 1989 triggered a massive reconfiguration of the translation activity in Romania. The interest in foreign cultural production increased “by leaps and bounds” (Mușat 2018: 127) and literary translation gradually became “a range of uncoordinated ‘microprograms’ in which the translational discourse alongside other domains, discourses and practices of national culture traditionally does the bidding of the transnational.” (Ursa 2018: 309, first emphasis mine). First, translations invaded bookstores at the expense of local literary productions: In those times of turmoil, confusion, and general disagreement (everybody would contest everybody), Romanian readers lost their faith in Romanian writers, possibly also because Romanians do not trust Romanians. But, in any case, the specific reason was a lack of trust in Romanian literature, compromised by its coexistences with Communism. The few readers that still existed took refuge in translations. The book market, the bookstores, were all invaded by translations, which obscured Romanian literature for a while. (Simuț 2008: web) Second, the interest shifted from literature to non-fiction, philosophy, or history books, generally to books that had been censored by the Communist regime. As far as literary genres were concerned, dystopias gained more and more traction: Denisa Comănescu discloses in one of her interviews (Mincan 2012) that Univers Press received no less than seven translations of George Orwell’s 1984 in 1990 alone. Comănescu is in fact the editor that speculated best the lack of contemporary literature in translation after the revolution and started flagship collections for Polirom (“Biblioteca Polirom332”) from 2001 to early 2006 and for Humanitas Fiction from 2006 onwards (“Raftul 332 The Polirom Library. 242 Denisei333”), capitalizing, as she herself admits, on the reputable series of foreign authors published by Univers. However, contemporary poetry translation immediately after 1989 was the result of translators’ strong preferences for one poet or another (Jim Morrison, Charles Simic, etc.), as well as an effort to bring exiled authors, such as Andrei Codescu, back into their culture of origin, or simply republications of older translations (T.S. Eliot by Aurel Covaci). In this respect, the border between mainstream and indie publishing began to fade away, and so did the importance of mainstream publishers, who initiated the publication of only seven out of the thirty three contemporary poetry titles since 1989 (cf. Annex 7 and Figure 20). With Univers turned into a family- business operating on a totally different model than the pre-2001 Univers, with only three major players on the book market (Humanitas, Polirom, and Paralela 45), with a myriad of new presses that sprouted after democracy took over, and with a readership that was interested in everything that happened abroad, especially in the United States, the book market became the host of various private initiatives that I address in the following two sections. Section 4.1 describes rock lyrics translation, a phenomenon that started well before the Revolution and continued until a few years ago, as a common practice for most of the states in the former Eastern bloc with repercussions on the current book market. The last section (4.2) addresses the thorny issue of mainstream vs. indie status and investigates translators’ roles in selecting, translating, and publishing most of the titles published in Romania over the past 28 years. 333 Denisa’s Shelf. 243 4.1. The Network Effect: Translating Rock Lyrics Interestingly enough, most academic essays about Romanian cultural life during the Communist regime, alongside those about the post-Communist period, paint a much gloomier picture than one would like to see. For instance, A Reader in International Media Piracy (2015) features an essay on subtitle translation into Romanian, whose introduction thrillerizes the way in which foreign movies used to reach the local audiences: Friday nights in Romania under the Communist regime […], friends and family would gather in front of their television sets trying to guess what they were actually watching. Telephone calls would be made, film reference and theory books consulted. Such detective skills were required due to the government’s censorship tactics which included screening foreign films (both on television and in cinemas) with their titles altered beyond recognition, credit sequences removed, entire scenes eliminated and dialogue ideologically cleansed through the subtitling process. (Dwyer and Uricariu 2015: 207) While it is certainly true that state media was heavily controlled by the censors, the account is exaggerated and obviously employs a scenario that would dignify even a Hollywood blockbuster. However controlled and slashed subtitling was, there was still a great amount of exposure of the audiences to the realities of foreign life, especially American life, which was of the utmost interest to them. One of the most familiar slogans during and after World War II until well after the Cold War and during the transition years to the democracy that followed was Vin americanii! (The Americans are coming!), an expression of Romania’s deepest desire to be rescued from the Soviet burden. Specters of America were made available via other media channels, such as radio shows, or via a parallel system of illegal video cassettes with Hollywood movies of all stripes, including pornographic productions. Such cassettes were readily available and many families owned a videorecorder to play them. The practice continued and intensified after the fall of the regime, then 244 subsided once the Romanian state television and the newfangled private TV channels started to air such productions themselves a few years after the revolution. Similarly, specters of America were often made available through rock and roll music broadcasting. If Romanian post-communism has known a strong movement of self- Americanization—“a voluntary appropriation of all things American, rather than an effect of the much cited U.S. cultural imperialism.” (Luca 2013: 90)—the years under communism were marked by an Americanization ‘on the stealth,’ through escapism into a music and a literature that did not comply with the party’s guidelines. However, this Americanization did not take place necessarily as a result of Romanians’ interest in the formerly dubbed ‘decadent West,’ but, as Pop shrewdly notes, as a consequence of what was an easement of the Stalinist grip on society from 1965 to 1971, commonly referred to as ‘The Thaw.’ (2016: 54). As a result, rock and folk334 music was among the genres that Communist cultural officialdom tried to accommodate. This relative openness towards the West favored the appearance of a local rock culture disillusioned with the local practices and ideology of local leaders. In a scholarly article dedicated to the alternative culture of the 1960s and 1970s, Madigan Fichter remarks that the “Romanian variant of the hippie movement was more discreet and less flamboyant than its Western counterpart, but still incorporated eccentric dress and a love of rock and beat music with a desire to escape the cultural and political rigidity of socialist Romania.” (2011: 570) She also notes that listening to rock music was not necessarily associated to hippiedom and that two staples of this counterculture activity were the purchase of black-market rock’n’roll records and listening ‘obsessively’ to radio shows such as Metronom, by Cornel Chiriac. Rock’n’roll was the music that helped young people create a private space away from the 334 Folk music was especially welcome by the Party because it was perceived as critical of capitalist societies. 245 collectivized, socialist way of life, as well as entertain a myth of Europe and the United States and present forms of culture that originated within these spaces. Most importantly, it was an informal network phenomenon that propagated fast and was entertained by the one-way network effect of forbidden radio broadcasting. One important media outlet that contributed to this phenomenon was Radio Europa Liberă (Radio Free Europe), which had a lasting influence on the “unknowing” Romanians: “The average Romanian is not allowed access to information, to experience. In constructing the images of the West, he cannot use personal experience or provable knowledge, because he doesn’t have any.” (Biro and Rostas 2001: 94) Secretly listening to such radio stations was one of the favorite past times of many young Romanians and music programs were extremely popular.335 Heavily targeted by censorship, playlists of local radios were carefully combed and only classical love songs or folk music were accepted (Pop 2016). However, many resourceful radio people would find ways to include otherwise banned rock songs in their programs and would cater to those rock fans with a certain limited access to Western cultural products. Rock music did not gain currency only because of the thrill of the banned, but mostly because of its socially-engaged content, because of the “smuggling of ideas and beliefs into the Soviet world” (McMichael 2008: 205) of which Romania was part at the time, as well as because of young people’s interest in the Western forms of expression (Fichter 2011); thus radio programmers would also translate the lyrics (Ionescu 2005, Vasiliu 2005), as we will see later in this subchapter, making sure the message would reach those listeners who didn’t have any knowledge of English. The tightly knit rock network vibrated at the lyrics of the Beatles, 335 Although heavily controlled by the Securitate, rock programmes were recorded on tape and then circulated within informal networks, between friends, to the extent to which they created social attitudes (Pop, 2016: 56). 246 Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, The Doors, and other such bands and had private revelations about what the West looked like: the West looked like those bands and sounded like their hard-won music. Both before and after 1989 rock lyrics were the ones typically associated with translation projects336—be they personal or institutional. In this subchapter I analyze those projects stemming out of radio programs and those grounded in individual preferences and initiative. This node is formed of radio people that have been considered by the Romanian rock community as trailblazers (Cornel Chiriac, Florian Pittiș), as well as of musicians (Alexandru Andrieș) and music enthusiasts (such as Dănuț Ivănescu). For lack of consistent academic sources337 related to three of these music specialists, this research is based on online audio and video recordings, interviews, and heartfelt accounts by people who knew them personally or professionally. 4.1.1. Rock Lyrics as Subversion: Jesus Christ Superstar Postcommunist rock lyric translation needs to be analyzed in close relationship with the same phenomenon before 1989 because it owes a great deal to several Romanian radio celebrities and musicians, who promoted jazz and rock music during the Communist regime, sometimes at the expense of their own lives. At the onset of the liberalization period, in 1964, the music scene in Romania started to become familiar with the music of great American jazzmen, like Louis Armstrong, or American and English rock musicians and bands, such as Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and 336 Since there is no official statistics related to lyrics translation, I rely completely on factual data identified during the present research. 337 The only scholarly article in English that mentions Florian Pittiș is related to his activity as an actor: Berlogea, Ileana. 1979. Shakespeare in Romania. In Shakespeare Quarterly, 30 (2): 281-285. Andrieș and Ivănescu are not referenced in any scholarly work. 247 many others. That came after almost twenty years in which jazz had been considered the art of the rotten West and forbidden by the propaganda. The jazz that still existed in Romania during those years was a superficial version called muzică de estradă (a term338 imposed by the Composers’ Union in Moscow), very similar to swing—the only kind that was allowed on the national radio and television. The lenient 1964 brought a change that was expected by many young people: jazz was called by its rightful name on national television, real jazz began to be played in fashionable clubs in the cities, international music festivals were set up, concerts were organized, and albums released. In this atmosphere, a radio show successfully counted for a sort of sound utopia for many young people: “Metronom,” by Cornel Chiriac, a self-taught jazz and rock specialist, arguably the most famous Romanian radio DJ of all times. Chiriac presented his audience with a special kind of show, in which not only did he play good music, otherwise inaccessible to most, but he also commented “on political issues and promoted the freedom of expression against the regime,” (Pop 2016: 57) as well as on the lyrics; he would also translate them for those listeners that could not comprehend them. Translation took an important part of his time: An incredible work capacity, musical knowledge, an infallible taste, a spiritual openness towards any viable experiment, knowledge of subtleties in literary English from which he translated hundreds of rock and progressive rock lyrics, a mission to promote culture on the radio that he shouldered not with self-importance, but naturally, with a passion and communicative warmth that made him extremely popular both in Romania and also in many European countries. Young Italians, Dutch, Swedish, Russians, Bulgarians used to listen to his shows although they didn’t understand what he was saying. His intonation, impeccable pronunciations of names, his natural speech claimed everyone’s hearts. In the “Prometeus” Club I learned that Metronom was listened to even in Irkutsk, Siberia. (Vasiliu ibid.: web, emphasis mine) 338 A musical genre similar to the vaudeville—characterized by simplicity and containing short, entertaining vocal and instrumental songs that audiences could dance on. 248 His program started to broadcast in Romania in 1967, but ended in 1968, when it was forbidden because Chiriac dared to include a Beatles song titled “Back in the USSR” on his playlist. Following the ban on his show, the DJ defected to Austria and then Germany, where he was discovered by Noel Barnard, Director of Radio Free Europe. Thus Chiriac was given the opportunity to offer “his contagious lesson in liberty” (Tismăneanu 2012: web) again: “Metronom” was broadcast anew between 1969 and 1975, when he was stabbed in a parking lot in Munich, an assassination possibly commissioned by the Romanian Securitate (Ionescu 2005: 25; Tismăneanu ibid.). Chiriac was the first to put together a professional study on the roots and history of jazz music, a 20-page monograph published by Secolul XX in 1966, the one who signed the foreword to the Romanian translation of My Life in New Orleans, by Louis Armstrong, and the one who wrote the introductory blurbs for several jazz LPs released by Electrecord, the national label at the time. Besides thoroughly transcribing all the foreign sources on jazz and rock he managed to get his hands on, Chiriac would sometimes translate the lyrics of the songs he played on the radio, especially the ones bearing political messages—his way of opposing the oppressive political regime in Romania and of educating young people on democracy some twenty-five years before the Romanians came to know it: To him, the social phenomenon, the revolt and the discontent that emanated from these songs and that were often mirrored by their lyrics were at least as important as the music. As you well know, Cornel was an encyclopedia of modern popular music, one of the best specialists. A man that understood it to perfection because he understood its roots, he knew where it came from, and he empathised with its thirst for freedom and peace, its aversion to war and brutality. (Bernard 1975: web) During a visit he made to Chiriac’s only living relative, Cornel Chiriac Jr., his nephew, reputed rock specialist and radio programmer Doru Ionescu discovered the translation into Romanian of Jesus Christ Superstar: 249 At Junior’s I came across the translation of the Jesus Christ Superstar rock opera (a sensational one, in my opinion!), brought from his house in Munich... I hope that one day I’ll be able to support its staging. That would be something for Cornel’s memory, how he remained in the hearts of millions of Romanians (and this is not an exaggeration!) who used to listen to his music shows more than the political talk- shows by his colleagues at Radio Free Europe… (2001: web) Intrigued by Ionescu’s finding, I searched the internet for a recording of the radio show in which Chiriac presented the Jesus Christ Superstar LP. Luckily, it is one of the very few recordings that are available today: the radio programmer presented the double LP during four 45-minute shows scheduled immediately after the release of the album, in 1970. However, only three of them were available on Youtube, but enough to offer a clear image of the way in which Chiriac structured his show and presented the lyrics. The first part starts with the detailed presentation of the authors of the rock opera, followed by a presentation of the characters and the singers that interpret those characters. He would then start presenting the songs in the order in which they appeared on the LP, each song preceded by his own translation. Chiriac is very aware of the translation process and explains that he found it to be “an interesting, but also tedious work,” (min. 20-21, Part 1339) as he tried to offer a rhymed version. He explains that he uses simple language, similar to the language in the original, but with “a light archaic nuance.” (ibid.) I listened to all three radio shows and transcribed all his translations and since I did not have the written version that Ionescu discovered among Chiriac’s personal things and there is not any other written copy, I relied completely on the oral version, therefore the formatting is mine and is also based on the formatting of the originals. Chiriac’s translation shows his deep engagement with the message of the opera, which he renders faithfully in a compelling fashion; his commentaries demonstrate a thorough understanding of the cultural references and significance: “It is obvious 339 Youtube source: http://bit.ly/ChiriacJCS http://bit.ly/ChiriacJCS 250 that Jesus Christ Superstar is an attempt ro make a comparison between Jesus’s passions and the fate of the modern musician. Does he want himself to be—or do others want him to be—a mentor, a spiritual Messiah of the young generation, or rather a social, political one?” he asks apparently rhetorically during the second part of the show;340 he also provides erudite explanations on various aspects such as the etymology of certain words and names (e.g., the origin of the name Judas the Iscariote, which derives from the Latin sicarius, an assassin, a murderer, etc.), as well as on the historical background of the accounts. Chiriac translates the title as “Iisus Cristos idol,” using idol as the equivalent for “superstar,” although the English term would be perfectly acceptable in today’s language. Even if his choice may sound like an infringement of the second commandment that urges believers to “not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus: 20, Bible, King James version)—or, the more modern version “You shall not make idols.”—that is rather unlikely, as he sounds in fact quite attached to the story behind the opera. His word choice relates more consistently to pop culture and to the condition of modern musicians: in “This Jesus Must Die”, he explains his translation of “Jesus Christ-mania” as Iisus Cristos mania (a calque after the English phrase) through an obvious hint to “Beatle-mania” and to Lennon’s remark that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus; he relates people’s request for a written proof from Jesus to autographs offered to fans; and uses primul în clasament (first on top) for “he’s top of the poll.” Chiriac’s attention to form, especially to rhyme—that he wants to preserve at all costs—and his lack of formal training in versification lead to a series of facile rhymes or awkward phrasings. 340 As Chiriac explains (part 2, minute 25-26). 251 However, his translation is exquisite given the context: a radio show of the 1970s, whose presenter had only a bachelor’s degree in English and was mostly self-educated, and could not take advantage of today’s affordances of the internet. He produces an oral version in Romanian that can be easily understood and memorized. Although he might not have been interested in how his renditions would work as lyrics, his versions sound remarkably convincing in oral performance. Here is for example the Romanian translation of “What’s the Buzz?” What’s the Buzz? Apostles: What’s the buzz? Tell me what’s a-happening. Jesus: Why should you want to know? Don’t you mind about the future? Don’t you try to think ahead? Save tomorrow for tomorrow; Think about today instead. Part 1, minute 31:00 Ce se-aude, ce se-ntâmplă? Apostolii: Ce se-aude, Ce se-ntâmplă? Iisus: De ce oare vreți să știți? Viitorul – ce vă pasă? La ce vine nu gândiți? Lăsați mâine pentru mâine, Voi pe astăzi chibzuiți. His versification, lexical choices and diction bear a striking resemblance to those of famous poem “Glossă” (Gloss),341 by widely revered 19th century early Modernist Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu, but also offer an almost literal translation of the original. The first song that he translates, “Cerul din mințile lor” (Heaven on their Minds), shows his great awareness of the different rhythms in the original: after he reads 25 lines, he stops, explains a background fact, warns the listeners that there is a change in meter in the original, provides a translation that has a different rhythm and meter, then signals when the text goes back to the initial meter and adapts his translation accordingly. When literal translation and the preservation of the rhyme are not possible concomitantly, he does 341 An excellent English translation by Corneliu M. Popescu is available at http://www.estcomp.ro/eminescu/gloss.html. http://www.estcomp.ro/eminescu/gloss.html 252 not shy away from adapting his version. Perhaps the best crafted adaptation is the introduction to “The Temple”, which he translates as Corul cămătarilor și al negustorilor (“The Choir of Moneylenders and Merchants”): The Temple I got things you won’t believe, Name your pleasure I will sell. I can fix your wildest needs, I got heaven and I got hell. Roll on up, for my price is down. Come on in for the best in town. Take your pick of the finest wine. Lay your bets on this bird of mine. What you see is what you get. No one’s been disappointed yet. Don’t be scared give me a try, There is nothing you can’t buy. Name your price, I got everything. Hurry, it’s going fast. Borrow cash on the finest terms. Hurry now while stocks still last. Part 2, minute 38:17 Corul cămătarilor și al negustorilor Fă-te-ncoa, fârtate, vând la preț scăzut, Neamule, am marfă cum n-ai mai văzut. Pun pariu că vinul meu dă viață Păsări c-ale mele nu găsești pe piață. Spune ce dobândă și-ți dau oricât vrei Vino, poți să cumperi tot pe banii mei. Pe lungă scadență dau cu-mprumutare Bani peșin, la bursă cursul e-n urcare. He provides a shorter version, only 8 lines instead of 16, in which he takes the most important cues from the original (marked in bold) and recreates the poem, offering two vivid, springy, and funny Balkan style quatrains. Interestingly enough, there is no evidence of Chiriac’s being aware of poets like John Cage, Jerome Rothenberg, or Charles Bernstein and their “writing through” techniques,342 and therefore most likely such uncommon approaches to translation and the resulting brilliant versions emerged from his heartfelt dedication, playful ingenuity, and resourceful creativity. 342 For Jerome Rothenberg, for instance, translation is a form of writing through the words of others. He also uses a technique he calls ‘variation’, which means deriving new poems from the key-vocabulary of poems he translated (cf. Writing Through: Translations and Variations. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 2004). 253 Chiriac’s example does not typify subversive radio activities under communist rule, but is a niche mode of engagement with the audiences through rock lyrics during a time when literature and music were the only refuge for many young people. Translation of rock lyrics thus became, just as pirated subtitles (Dwyer and Uricariu ibid.: 221), a by-product of censorship practices and illustrated the primacy of the agent, network, and the media, and the importance of the message, rather than of its originality or accuracy. In a country where in 1991 electric guitars were still ‘scarce,’ (Negus 1992: 108) rock-mania provided a necessary escapism, while translating lyrics into Romanian was perhaps a result of the introversion and insularity of the Romanian hippie movement (Fichter 2011: 578), in that they might have been the expression of a self-referential counterculture rather than arduous political activism. 4.1.2. Bob Dylan Translated by Musicians The tradition of translating rock lyrics continued after Chiriac’s death with Florian Pittiș, one of Romania’s most loved actors, radio presenters, and vocalists. Known as “a perpetual teenager” (Moceanu 2017: web) passionate about theatre and rock music, Pittiș never quite fell in line with the Communist Party and famously turned down even their request to have his hair cut.343 He had decisively contributed to promoting artists like Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones among Romanian youth both before and after 1989. After starting out as a successful actor in 1968 and after years of work with Bulandra Theater in Bucharest, Pittiș initiated in 1981 a series of galvanizing shows called “Poezia muzicii tinere” (The Poetry of Young Music), during which he 343 He was one of the young people identified as objectors, who normally had their long hair and blue jeans scissored (Ionescu, 2005: 36, 50). 254 used to present and comment on the lyrics of various foreign rock bands and artists. His rugged, yet warm and fascinating voice, not only presented the English originals, but also delivered translations of the texts that he had done himself. To Pittiș translation was a natural act, a spontaneous response to his meeting with a foreign culture, to which he added, just as naturally, a performative dimension: any text he would read was approached with the awareness of an audience. His show at the theater was banned in 1985, but was followed by “Cântece pentru mine însumi344,” (Songs for Myself) which ran between 1985 and 1989, and by “Cum se numeau cei patru Beatles” (written by Stephen Poljakoff under the original title of City Sugar) whose format allowed Pittiș to play a music normally banned by the censors. The kind of shows he organized at various theaters allowed him to promote this type of culture through a two-way network effect: his shows were not only meant to disseminate the desired information to a specific audience, but also to have the audience interact with the artists and make their voices known in a unique type of rhizhomatic performance. Theater was not the only venue where Pittiș explored the advantages of the two-way network effect. After the revolution, he was the producer and presenter of two legendary radio programs, “Pittiș Show” and “Rock Panorama”, which ran for years before Pittiș was appointed as a director of Radio Romania Tineret in 1999, a branch of the state-owned radio channel. Passionate about information technology, Pittiș moved his show online and thus revolutionized radio broadcasting by adapting to the requirements of the digital media and, more importantly, by involving—again—his abundant audience in his shows: he would maintain direct contact with his listeners via the chat room, he would broadcast live from the studio, and he would often propose the topics to be discussed in the forum section of the website. All these were the elements of a 344 A title inspired by Songs of Myself by Walt Whitman, whose poems Pittiș would often recite during the show. 255 completely new work ethics in Romanian radio and made Pittiș a trailblazer of dynamic radio programming (Moceanu 2017: web). Besides translating live the lyrics of the rock bands presented, he translated and adapted many of Bob Dylan’s songs, such as “Death is Not the End“ (Sfârşitul nu-i aici), “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right“ (Nu-i nimic, asta e!) or “Rainy Day Women“ (Toţi suntem puţin luaţi...). In 2001, Pittiș became lead vocalist for Pasărea Colibri, one of Romania’s most famous folk bands, and started to sing his own translations of Dylan’s. His penchant for rock music in general was expressed repeatedly in interviews: “[…] there are people that live passionately; I love such people. They feel that in rock music one cannot lie or, at least, it’s more difficult to lie than in any other genre. Rock is still very much a howl.” (Stoicescu 2009: web) The obvious reference to Allen Ginsberg’s famous poem is one of the many proofs that Pittiș had a deep understanding of what the role of young generations was: he believed in the power of people to shape the world and rejected their role as mere cogs in the social and political machine. He valued the importance of free speech, of freedom in general, and of each person’s ability to think for themselves—all masterfully expressed through the iconic lyrics of “Vinovații fără vină,” a song he sang with his band Pasărea Colibri: “Nu contează cât de lung am părul / Important e ce și cum gândesc.” (It does not matter how long my hair is, / But how and what I think do). His affinity for Bob Dylan’s music should thus come as no surprise as the covers345 he played with his band are the natural extension of the ideals he shared with the legendary American artist all his life—and certainly not a faute de mieux, as musical covers are usually perceived. The interview he gave after having been appointed director of Radio Romania Tineret in 1999 spells out his vision on education through the un-mediated absorption of culture: 345 Possibly included among the over 26,000 covers of Dylan inventoried before 2010 (Gezari and Hartman, 2010: 152). 256 I have faith in our true youth, in these children who refuse ready-made truths, who refuse to believe everything they are told at school or at home, who study because they need to study, because life will present them with hardship anyway and they will find useful for their education all those basics taught in school. Fortunately, just like it used to happen when I was young, there is still a certain ‘underground’ culture, that they explore by themselves, during ‘school breaks’. When I was in school, I would read [Lucian] Blaga346 only because he was banned. But also because of my parents (May they rest in peace!), I would read Gazeta literară and Contemporanul. At the same time, I would listen to Elvis Presley, play football and be crazy about "Rock around the clock." […] Such young people still exist in our country! And they are very many! With a thirst for culture, a thirst for knowing all kinds of things! So my mission is to present Romanian youth with such underground culture. (Kerim 1999: web) The translation of rock and folk lyrics represented both for Chiriac and for Pittiș a way to fill a cultural gap, the kind that widens uncontrollably under oppressive political regimes. Besides filling this gap and importing resources, Pittiș also used translation creatively, adapting Dylan’s songs to speak to young Romanians and to preserve their performativity. Just to offer an example of such adaptation, he translated “Rainy Day Women” as Toți suntem puțin luați..., which is in fact a line in the chorus: “Everybody must get stoned.” He employs the colloquial a fi luat (to be tipsy) and reads in Romanian “We are all a bit tipsy…” (literally: “we are all a bit taken”), thus replacing stoned with “tipsy/drunk”, a translation that was bound to be more relevant for his listeners, much more familiar at the time with alcohol than with any kind of illegal substances. The reference to drugs is also suppressed in the body of the text: he translates “they stone you” by te iau, which can be interpreted both as “I take you”, but also as “they take you”. Most importantly, his use of the verb “a lua” both for “they stone you” and “we are all tipsy” is a very creative way to avoid the reference to drugs, to use a leitmotif just as the original does, yet create two different meanings, of which one refers to alcohol, and one refers to political interference in and control over people’s lives. His choice also entertains 346 Romanian interbellum philosopher and writer who famously refused to support the Communist regime. Fired from his academic position with the university in Sibiu, he worked as a librarian and became a prolific translator. 257 the ambiguity of the original, which plays with the religious connotations of ‘to stone someone to death.’ Furthermore, another simply genius solution for the first line of the chorus—“But I would not feel so all alone”—is the very idiomatic phrase “Dar hai să ne avem ca frați” (“But let us all get along just like brothers do”), which creates a perfect rhyme with the final line: Well, they’ll stone you when you are all alone They’ll stone you when you are walking home They’ll stone you and then say they’re all brave They’ll stone you when you’re sent down in your grave But I would not feel so all alone Everybody must get stoned Te iau când numai tu ți-ai mai rămas, Te iau și-atunci când mergi și tu acas’, Te iau și-apoi îti spun că esti bărbat, Te iau când în mormânt te-ai așezat! Dar hai să ne avem ca frați, Toți sîntem puțin luați! Finally, while the original quatrain employs an irregular iambic pentameter (with a syllable elision in the fourth iamb), which becomes regular only in the final line, the Romanian version is built on a perfectly regular pentameter that helped the translator perform the song with much more ease and rhythm347. A selection of Dylan’s lyrics was translated and published in book form for the first time in 1991 by folk singer, song writer, writer, and architect Alexandru Andrieș. The collection was released on the American singer’s fiftieth anniversary and is titled (Happy Birthday) Dylan.348 It contains twenty-five poems and a presentation by the translator himself, which includes five more translations (full texts or simply relevant fragments). Andrieș explains from the get-go that the selection was made following his own taste and preference for one poem or another, rather than on grounds of a certain literary hierarchy, and that it offers more of a personal version in Romanian rather than a translation proper. However, it is interesting to note that some of his translations are 347 A very illustrative interpretation of Dylan’s “Rainy Day Women” by Florian Pittiș in Romanian—a concert organized in 1997—is available on Youtube at http://bit.ly/2kP4daq. The original can be accessed at http://bit.ly/2e7lvhp 348 Dylan, Bob. 1991. (La mulți ani) Dylan (Alexandru Andrieș, Trans,). Brașov: Editura Pronto. http://bit.ly/2kP4daq http://bit.ly/2e7lvhp 258 quite accurate (at the expense of the rhyme), while others run the gamut from simple elisions of less familiar references (e.g., he drops the reference to Anita Ekberg and keeps the reference to Sophia Loren and Brigitte Bardot in his translation of “I Shall Be Free”) to inserting words that were not in the original or even rewriting whole lines (e.g., “It’s President Kennedy calling me up” becomes Preşedintele Kennedy exagerează (President Kennedy is exaggerating), or “what do we need to make the country grow” becomes “Ca să ne crească ţara ca lanul de ştevie” (So that our country grows like a field of patience dock349). I Shall Be Free (fragment) by Bob Dylan Well, my telephone rang it would not stop It’s President Kennedy callin’ me up He said, My friend, Bob, what do we need to make the country grow? I said my friend, John, Brigitte Bardot Anita Ekberg Sophia Loren Country’ll grow Translation by Alexandru Andrieș Telefonul sună, mă enervează, Preşedintele Kennedy exagerează Zice: prietene Bob ce crezi că ne trebuie Ca să ne crească ţara ca lanul de ştevie Îi zic: prietene John mai ești acolo, alo Ne trebuie Sophia Loren şi Brigitte Bardot Şi creşte ţara. Such inconsistencies in the manner in which he translated these lyrics stem from the personal nature of this translation initiative, as well as from the fact that some of them were performed in concert or on Andrieș’s LPs: the meter is not observed where it should be, rhymes are used although they are not present in the original, meter is more regular than in the original, whole songs are adapted or even rewritten, etc. For example, on his “Alb negru” LP (1999), “Oxford Town” becomes “La noi” (In Our Neck of the Woods) in the title proposed by Andrieș, then various other Romanian toponyms across the quatrains, which are all mockingly rewritten and brimful with cultural 349 Lat. Rumex Patientia, a plant used in Eastern Europe in soup stocks, especially in spring. It is referenced here as a symbol of abundance due to its perennial nature and leafy appearance. 259 references (e.g., Periş is a small satellite town of Bucharest and also commonly known as the first train station after the capital, here praised for having houses with roofs and no McDonald’s): Oxford Town by Bob Dylan Oxford Town, Oxford Town Everybody’s got their heads bowed down The sun don’t shine above the ground Ain’t a-goin’ down to Oxford Town La noi Translated by A. Andrieș La Periş, la Periş, Casele-au acoperiş, Nici McChicken, nici McFish, Minunat e la Periş! In Our Neck of the Woods (back translation) In Periş, in Periş All houses are quite roofish, No McChicken, no McFish, It’s amazing in Periş! The translator took many liberties, but fully acknowledged them in the foreword, emphasizing his need to render Dylan into Romanian over any personal creative merits. However, I consider his version of “Rainy Day Women” to be less accomplished than the one by Pittiș, although I believe he took his inspiration from it (e.g., Andrieș uses Ți-o fac (“I’ll trick you”) for Pittiș’s Te iau: although an interesting choice, it was much easier to achieve with an established translation in place.) Unlike Andrieș, Pittiș thrived in translation: he sounded much more natural, and the sense of appropriation felt less acute, as he would often sing the original lyrics after interpreting the cover version in Romanian, therefore the relationship between the original and the translation was maintained explicit on more than just one level. To Pittiș, translation came more fluidly, spontaneously, consistently (he even translated the name of the band Rolling Stones as “Vântură lume” (The Wanderers, quite a felicitous choice), perhaps from a more general awareness of what needed to be imported from other cultures or, better, of what Romania needed to fill the gap created by the 42-year communist rule. Translation was part of both his ‘program’ and of his sparkling personality while his agency was manifest in all he did, including creating communities. 260 His only four translations of Dylan are widely known in Romania, and not only among the Pasărea colibri fans. However, one of his radio co-workers recounts that he did not believe in ratings and offers on her website his exact words: “I need to tell you something about this stupid thing called ratings. Back in the day, Jesus’s rating was lower than Barabas’s. And the people chose Barabas. I wonder if that was OK.” (Isopescu 2013: web) Although he didn’t believe in ratings, he managed to create covers of Dylan’s music that most Romanians passionate about music are familiar with. 4.1.3. Dylan, a Feather to a Literary Cap Pittiș’s translations of Dylan are so well done and so widely-known because of the networks he belonged in and effectively exploited, that any other translation of the same lyrics by Dylan may be measured against them. In 2012 Humanitas Press published Bob Dylan’s Selected, translated by the celebrated contemporary writer Mircea Cărtărescu, whose name is acknowledged in the very title of the book: Suflare în vânt. 100 de poeme traduse de Mircea Cărtărescu (Blowing in the Wind. 100 Poems Translated by Mircea Cărtărescu). The translator also signs the foreword, in which he humblebrags in the most glorious way: I tried to be fully faithful to the original, but also to give it a certain flexibility in Romanian. ‘This is not Cărtărescu, this is Dylan.’ This is what I was telling to myself all the time while I translated. Cărtărescu is only the tool that can make Dylan shine in Romanian, I used to tell myself. And still, those readers that are truly familiar with my style will be able to recognize it in these one hundred poems of Dylan, because this is inevitable. All I can hope is that it doesn’t bother the reader, that it is only part of the background, and maybe a necessary ‘shadow’. (Cărtărescu 2012: 18, emphases mine) It is no surprise that the most visible Romanian writer was chosen to translate Dylan’s lyrics and why he accepted. The reasons are manifold and before being a mainstream translation project, it is the 261 project of a poet-translator with a manifested literary affinity for the American poet. His foreword reveals themes and images in Dylan’s lyrics that he and the entire writer generation of the 1980s share a taste for (David 2016), such as “surrealist, apocalyptic visions,” (ibid.: 11) or “psychedelic flavors dear to [his] heart.” (ibid.: 10) Cărtărescu’s association with a title that was supposed to sell out soon after the release must have been complemented by the satisfaction of a personal project that made the poet one of the go-to names in lyrics translation into Romanian, as this was the third such project, after two translations of Leonard Cohen’s poems in 2003 and 2006 (cf. section 4.2). No matter how promising in terms of sales and how felicitous the association between the two names, the Romanian translation bears a hilarious title, which seems to have been overlooked by its most prominent and qualified reviewer, renowned translator Grete Tartler.350 Initially translated by poet Adrian Păunescu351 as vânare de vânt (wind chasing), ‘blowing in the wind’ becomes suflare în vânt (literal rendition of the English original) in the Humanitas translation, a phrase never used idiomatically in Romanian and bearing unintended scatological connotations, since, just as in English, vânt (wind) is a common euphemism. I can only assume that Cărtărescu tried to avoid Păunescu’s established translation and to come up with a whole new Dylan, a Dylan of his own. However, vânare de vânt will likely remain the best Romanian translation of “Blowing in the Wind”, one that has been sung by many folk singers since its premiere during communism. Păunescu’s inspirational rendition of the phrase ‘blowing in the wind’ as vânare de vânt, a phrase that appears only in the Romanian translation of the Ecclesiastes 1:17 for ‘to chase/strive (after) the 350 Romanian writer and translator of German origin. She is known for her translations of Goethe, as well as for many other translations of poetry and diction from the German, Danish, English, French, and the Arabic. 351 Controversial creator of the famous Cenaclul Flacăra (The Flame Literary Circle), the event during which the first Romanian version of “Blowin’ in the Wind” was launched towards the end of the 1970s. The song was sung at that time by Florian Pittiș and became one of his bestselling songs, also included on one of Pasărea Colibri’s albums, În căutarea cuibului pierdut (released in 1995). 262 wind’ is arguably the best rendition of Dylan’s title. Its rendition is in perfect harmony with the message of Dylan’s songs and is a perfect translation of the title’s meaning, while Cărtărescu’s version is both awkward and unintentionally funny, a failed attempt to avoid an established translation at all costs. In a blog entry on the two versions, Constantin Piștea admits to preferring Pittiș’s version and indicates that performativity plays an essential role: It might also be [his] voice, low and a bit raspy and husky, yet unmistakable. It might be. But the truth is that every time I read another poem in [Cărtărescu’s] book I would also listen to Bob’s original song and, more urgently, the cover played by Florian Pitiș352 and his band, Pasărea Colibri. You wanna know what happened? I realized I terribly missed Florian Pitiș…! (Piștea 2014: web) Pittiș’s translations do fit the score and sound impressive indeed in performance, but there is still more to them than just meets the eye… and the ear. If we look at Dylan’s “Death is Not the End,” the first two lines, for instance, “When you’re sad and when you’re lonely / And you haven’t got a friend / Just remember that death is not the end” become Când necazuri te doboară, / Și prieteni n-ai să-i strigi / Ține minte, sfârșitul nu-i aici, which is translation by synthesis (e.g., “sad” and “lonely” are rendered by one word, “trouble”) followed by a generalization (“the end is not here”), while Cărtărescu’s translation of the first line and of the chorus is literal, but then he has to make up a whole verse in order to preserve the rhyme: Şi nu mai vine răsăritul (“And sunrise is no longer coming” for “And you haven’t got a friend”). Nevertheless, Tartler’s review is highly praising, calling Cărtărescu’s translations ‘much better’ than the originals and endowed with ‘a special charm’ that comes from the translator’s very alteration of the text. The departure from the original, when it happens, is considered by the reviewer as a lucidus ordo, a perspicuous arrangement. Then Tartler offers the example of “Highway 352 He used both orthographies alternatively: Pittiș or Pitiș. 263 61” in translation, which she calls a ‘masterpiece’. The translation is indeed excellent, but the examples offered further depart from the original to such an extent that they become, just like Tartler notes, poems by Cărtărescu in the vein of various illustrious Romanian predecessors, such as Anton Pann or Ion Barbu. Not only does the translator use various regional terms (e.g., prișniță for medicament / medicine), but also rewrites whole lines so that he could stay close to the meter and rhyme. In “Subterranean Homesick,” (“Dor de casă subteran”) “Maggie comes fleet foot, face full of black soot / Talkin’ that the heat put plants in the bet book” becomes “Maggie vine repede/ plină de funingine/ Să ne spună: «Plantele/ Au crescut sub plapume»./”, that is [...] to tell us / The plants have grown under duvets.” He renders ‘plants’ by plante, when the more common rendition would be flori (flowers). Or “Phone’s tapped anyway / Maggie says “The Man, he say / They must bust in early May, orders from the D.A.” becomes Telefonu-i ascultat/ Mulţi inşi zic că au aflat/ Că inspectorul de stat/ Nu mai trebuie votat, which means “[…] many dudes say they found out / That the state inspector / No longer must be voted for.” In the absence of the original (the book contains only the Romanian translation), Cărtărescu affords himself a wide range of liberties. The reviewer does not seem to be bothered, but, at the same time, starts out tongue-in-cheek by saying that she begins her review by talking about herself, just as the translator speaks about himself in the translator’s foreword. She admits to have never been into Dylan at all and to only having become familiar with his music and ideology on the occasion of writing the review. All these may be an indication that her commentary was commissioned by the publishing company, a hypothesis supported by the lack of any other review before Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. The Humanitas project is an interesting case of a translation whose author cannot overcome his own literary stardom and whose publisher uses the reputation of the poet-translator as a 264 guarantee for quality: it is Dylan, a Dylan the translator clearly admires,353 but a Dylan translated (of all, we might read) by none other than Cărtărescu. Even Tartler’s review, “Cărtărescu și Dylan,” mentions the translator first, an inkling of the assessment the reviewer was about to make. Both the author’s and the translator’s symbolic capitals work together for the success of the project, while also, by association, increase each other’s prestige: for those who have never heard of Dylan— unlikely as it may sound—Cărtărescu’s allegiance via translation is a guarantee of literary value, while adding Dylan to Cărtărescu’s portfolio is not only a translation event born out of translator’s admiration, but also one more famous feather to his own literary cap. 4.1.4. Three Times Jim Morrison The first translation of rock lyrics in book form in post-communist Romania was Jim Morrison’s An American Prayer and Other Writings.354 The book was the project of rock music enthusiast Dănuț Ivănescu, and editor of the Romanian Heavy Metal Magazin. The first bilingual edition was published in 1995 at Quo Vadis? Press in Chișinău. Printing books with presses and printing houses in the Republic of Moldova was a common practice during those years, as prices were more affordable than in Romania and local publishers welcomed the idea of facilitating projects in Romanian. The first print run probably sold out very quickly, as two more editions were published in 1997, this time with Romanian publishers—Cartea de nisip and Karmat Press. The books produced by these publishers reveal a very eclectic selection—a hodgepodge of cheap literature, poetry, 353 In an interview for Observatorul cultural 312 in 2006 („Stiu mai bine ce vreau si ce nu vreau de la literatura“, by Ovidiu Șimonca), six years before the translation of Dylan’s poems was launched, Cărtărescu mentions the American singer’s album Another Side of Dylan when he talks about his own multiple literary personae. 354 Morrison, Jim. 1995/1997. O rugă americană și alte scrieri (An American Prayer and Other Writings (Virgilia and Mara Popa, Trad.). Chișinău: Quo Vadis? Press / Cartea de nisip / Karmat Press. 265 translations, memoirs, most of them being rather reflections of their authors’ personal agendas than a coherent publication portfolio. The translation of Morrison’s poems and lyrics is the perfect example of such projects born from someone’s passion for a certain kind of music. Its publication was an act of open admiration towards the poet and musician, as all paratexts and subsequent reviews of the translation to Morrison’s life and music only. There are no translation excerpts online, nor are there any in other media. The only reference to the two translators appears on a blog run by the artist who designed the cover of the book, Ionuț Bănuță.355 This is how I found out that Virgilia and Mara Popa are siblings. Ana Virgilia Popa is in fact a researcher in veterinary medicine, whose other translations to date have nothing to do with poetry, but with science fiction and with specialized texts pertaining to the field of biology. Such an eclectic profile is an indication of how Virgilia Popa came to translate this poetry collection: most probably because she was personally acquainted with the publisher. Details from Ana Virgilia Popa’s online CV confirm the fact that the first edition was published in 1995 at Quo vadis? Press (in Chișinău, Republic of Moldova), while the other three were published between 1996 and 1998 by Karmat Press and Cartea de Nisip Publishers (which all had the same owner, Dănuț Ivănescu). The translation was popular among Morrison’s fans (e.g., one of the poems in translation, Cine te-a speriat (Who Scared You)), was included on the Romanian band Blue Spirit’s 1999 album titled Cei mai frumoși ani! (The Most Beautiful Years!), but was always sung alongside the original. The 51-poem selection follows an ample foreword from the publisher, Dănuț Ivănescu, titled “‘Cel frumos și blestemat’ sau ‘La porțile percepției’,” (The Handsome and Cursed or At the Doors of Perception) which addresses the rock star’s troubled biography. The Romanian versions 355 The cover designer reveals that he designed the cover out of his “deep admiration” for Morrison’s band, The Doors. http://bit.ly/MorrisonBanuta. 266 follow the original quite accurately and sometimes manage to preserve the rhyme, but the prosody is not a concern for the two translators. A similar preoccupation for the meaning of Morrison’s lyrics appears in Tudor Crețu’s essays on narcopoetics, a series of three pieces published in Observatorul cultural in 2016 on his drug addiction as part of the artistic process.356 Most excerpts from Morrison’s poems are offered in Romanian translation and a note at the end states that all translations were made by the author himself. *** These five examples related to rock lyric translation show that Romanian rock music scene was a complex phenomenon that presented four ways of translation deployment, all indebted to a network of music enthusiasts rather than to any cultural politics. First, post-Communist rock music was heavily influenced by the European and American countercultures, but still retained its own modes of expression, which revolved more consistently around presenting alternatives to mass- produced culture, and mostly lacked the dissident emphasis that characterized similar movements. Instead, Romanian underground culture gravitated around archaic ritualism, folklore, and mysticism (including shamanism and traditional magical practices), an attempt at embracing Romania’s pre- communist past. While the existing literature generally links folklore-infused Romanian rock to a nationalism that was accepted by the Communist regime (Pop 2016, Dobrescu 2011), one also needs to acknowledge the fact that it may have been a response to Mircea Eliade’s impact as a historian of religions (Oișteanu 2006)357 and a symbol of the alternative ways of approaching Romanian culture. I would argue here that, for example, Cornel Chiriac’s choice to translate Jesus Christ 356 Crețu, Tudor. 2012. “Jim Morrison, narcopoetica (1-3).” In Observator cultural 811, 812, 814. Web: http://bit.ly/narcopoetica. Last accessed December 28, 2017. 357 Andrei Oișteanu also documented and explained the impact of this world-famous historian of religions on hippiedom beyond Romania, specifically in California, during the 1960s and the early 1970s. http://bit.ly/narcopoetica 267 Superstar in its entirety may have been the result of an Eliadesque mode of perceiving and promoting music and that translation was his very personal way of understanding it. Claire Bishop rightfully notes that self-organization and personal experience were important modes of experiencing art in general under socialism: “For artists living under communism, participation had no […] agitationary goals. It was, rather, a means of experiencing a more authentic (because individual and self-organized) mode of collective experience than the one prescribed by the state in official parades and mass spectacles; as such, it frequently takes escapist or celebratory forms.” (2012: 161) Translation becomes, through the work of radio producers like Cornel Chiriac and Florian Pittiș, a celebration of rock music and of underground culture in general. Second, the celebration of rock music via lyrics translation is also represented by a more popular form, that of cover versions. Covers were the sole initiative of the artists, who chose either to observe the original poem and provide an accurate translation (like Pittiș), or to adapt the original lyrics, offering an accurate rendition of the titles but largely modifying the main portion of the poem (like Andrieș) in order to preserve the performative aspect. Covers are either only performed, or are doubled by isolated publishing initiatives (e.g., Andrieș published the anniversary volume of adaptations dedicated to Dylan, but never published a similar work again). Third, also in line with the celebratory function of translation, there are translation initiatives that stem from the publishers’ affinity with a certain artist. The extent of the initiative relies on the financial power of the publisher, and the degree of faithfulness to the original depends on the translator’s profile. Fourth, and most importantly, all rock lyric translation in Romania has been built on individual taste and the promotion of such work depended largely, with the notable exception of Humanitas, on a tightly knit network of music enthusiasts who found ways to reach wider audiences. And even in the case of Humanitas, Cărtărescu’s admiration for Dylan’s music—part and parcel of the American 268 influence on the Romanian generation of the 1980s—might have had a say in the initiation of this translation project. 4.2. Romanian Mainstream and Indie Publishers of Translated Poetry after 1989 There is a fine line between established and indie publishing in Romania. Generally associated with high levels of intermediation and with rigidity in terms of expected financial performance, mainstream publishers are not the typical venue for poetry translation unless the authors are iconic figures in their home literatures. One cannot measure how established a publisher is in terms of published translation by the number of reviews discussing these works either because reviewing translations is not a common practice. Such evaluations are rarely made in literary periodicals and, when they are, what triggers them is rather the stature of the author or the translator and the network of the latter’s literary acquaintances, not necessarily the publisher or the quality of the translation. The corpus shows us that established publishers started to manifest a somewhat constant interest towards contemporary North American poetry in English just before the country joined the European Union on January 1, 2007. Even so, this is only the case of Humanitas and Polirom—the two mainstream publishing houses that dominate the industry, with Polirom more interested in promoting Romanian fiction writers abroad and Humanitas bringing foreign authors to the local market. It is safe to say that Humanitas included T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound358 in their publishing plans because they are canonized authors, whose literary value is undeniable and who also align with the 358 I have not included this translation (by Radu Vancu) in my corpus because Volume 1, the only one published to date, contains only poems published in original between 1908 and 1920. 269 requirements of a globalized, capitalist market. The same goes for their choice of Bob Dylan’s lyrics or for Polirom’s interest in Leonard Cohen, whose international fame was certainly in line with the sales policy of the publisher. By contrast, indie publishing in the Romanian context is associated with self-publication, disintermediation, and almost complete control over the published product on the part of the translator. However, even this type of publishing is intermediated by presses that cannot be catalogued as fully mainstream or fully indie. Unlike in other contexts, where an author can publish their work under their own auspices, indie publishing in Romania means that an author, or a translator, in our case, uses a private company that has the legal right to operate as a publisher. Private individuals are not allowed to, therefore they need to collaborate with a publishing house that supplies the much needed ISBN. While most indie publishers typically issue the ISBN and serve as intermediaries in the printing process, there are independent publishers who also get involved in the design and promotion of the book, which typically results in no further financial gains for the translator. Royalties in poetry translation are not common and the amounts earned by such publishing houses by selling these books merely allow them to survive. However, this precariousness in means has beneficial effects in terms of productivity and the variety of authors translated (Figure 20). Translated poetry publishing in Romania appears as a disconnected graph359 with 28 author nodes (for 33 books) and 18 publisher nodes—divided in fourteen components, zero clustering and density close to zero (0.0309). 359 Translators are the edges that connect the publisher and author nodes, therefore they have no role in the economy of this particular graph. 270 Figure 20. Contemporary English-language U.S. and Canadian poetry collections translated after 1989360 Legend: red = mainstream; green = indie. 360 The network includes the translation of Jim Morrison’s lyrics presented in section 4.1.4. 271 The fine line between mainstream and indie publishers is given by a third category, such as Paralela45 (Figure 21), the most central node in the network because of the number of authors published and the association with three more presses that published other books by the same authors (Cartea românească, Humanitas, and Editura Fundației culturale române). Figure 21. Translation projects associated with mainstream Paralela 45, Humanitas, Cartea românească, and Editura fundației culturale române (Legend: red = mainstream; green = indie) Their market presence and history point to a mainstream status, but the type of poetry titles they have hosted after the revolution actually show an openness to books that appear to be their translators’ projects. I would contend that this openness has been the result of the network of people around the late Gheorghe Crăciun (editorial consultant and then editor-in-chief), a poetry theorist who built his most reputed book, The Iceberg of Modern Poetry (Crăciun 2009), on the works of poets like Walt Whitman or Frank O’Hara. This press ranks first in all types of centrality in G (bc = 0.0212; cc = 0.1094; EigenVector = 0.6005) and is best placed and most influential in G0, followed 272 in betweenness and closeness centrality not by a mainstream publisher, but by an independent one, Scrisul românesc—the press which built its portfolio due to transatlantic connections (cf. section 2.2.3). Paralela 45 starts its series of translations from U.S. contemporary poetry with a bilingual volume of selected poems by Andrei Codrescu,361 an established Romanian-born American author translated by Ioana Ieronim. The translator confesses in her foreword that in 2000 she actually resumed her translations of Codrescu’s poetry, one that had started five years before (Ieronim 2000: 18-19), and that Paralela 45 decided to make Codrescu even more popular in Romania after his first volume362 of translated poems, Candoare străină, published only three years before by another press, sold out. The first volume was translated by the same Ieronim and published by a different press, so we may assume both translations from Codrescu’s poetic work were Ieronim’s projects. The situation is actually not very different from the publication of his translated novels. All eleven novels and non-fiction books were translated by the same Ioana Avădani. Avădani is not simply a translator appointed by the publisher to work on Codrescu’s texts, but her relationship with the Romanian-born writer dates back to the late 1990s, when she started to translate his work with the novel Mesi@363 and the articles published by Codrescu in reputed cultural journal Dilema Veche under the moniker Scrisori din New Orleans (Letters from New Orleans). Translation is simply a pastime for Avădani—as she confesses in many interviews and bio notes—and a reflection of her long-time friendship and literary affinity with Codrescu: “I am not a professional translator, I don’t earn a living by doing this, so I can afford my own rhythm and choose what I want to translate. I 361 Codrescu, Andrei. 2000. Selected Poetry. Poezii alese (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.). Pitești: Editura Paralela 45. 362 Codrescu, Andrei. 1997. Candoare străină: Poeme alese, 1970-1996 (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.). Editura Fundației Culturale Române. 363 Codrescu, Andrei. 2000. Mesi@ (Ioana Avădani, Trans.). Cluj: Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române. 273 revel in word hunting.” (Vasilescu 2011: web, emphasis mine). She is otherwise known as the director of the Centre for Independent Journalism and has been for years a prominent figure in Romanian media, a position which may have allowed her to successfully propose translation projects to visible publishers. Her first translation, Mesi@, was published by Editura Fundației Culturale Române, founded by the Romanian Writers’ Union, where Ieronim published her first poetry translation. When the press was shut down, the two translators took their projects to other publishers: Ieronim to Paralela 45, and Avădani to Polirom, who published six of Codrescu’s titles.364 But the rhythm in which the prolific translator worked on her friend’s books required a second publisher, this time Curtea Veche Publishing, and a dedicated series bearing the name of the author365. While his prose was the result of his sole translator’s effort, the translation of his poetry is tributary to a second translator-poet, Carmen Firan, who took Codrescu’s first and only book written in his native Romanian, Intrumentul negru366, and published it in 2005 at Scrisul românesc press. We have also seen in the section on translations in print periodicals that Firan also translated selections of Codrescu’s poems and published them in the literary journal affiliated with the press. All these collaborations are part of a process of poetic reinstatement carried out by a network of various Romanian writer-translators that met Codrescu in the United States. The next volume of American contemporary poetry published at Paralela 45 is the translation of Charles Simic’s The Book of Gods and Demons367 in 2002. There is no clear indication that this was a translator initiative; however, the volume differs in terms of design and is not 364 Contesa sângeroasă (2010), Noi n-avem bun-gust, noi sîntem artiști (2008), Wakefield (2006), Mesi@ (2006), Scrisori din New Orleans (2006), Casanova în Boemia (2005). 365 Prof pe drum (2008), Gaura din steag (2008), Ghid dada pentru postumani - Tzara şi Lenin joacă şah (2009), Ay, Cuba! O călătorie socio-erotică (2012), Lecția de poezie (2014). 366 Codrescu, Andrei. 2005. Instrumentul negru. Poezii, 1965-1968. Craiova: Scrisul românesc. 367 Charles Simic. 2002. Cartea zeilor şi a demonilor (Mircea Cărtărescu, Trans.). Pitești: Paralela 45. 274 bilingual, unlike Codrescu’s Selected in the Gemini series. Cărtărescu’s translation is preceded by a translator’s note, in which he places the volume in the wider context of Simic’s poetry and where the presence of the translator is only visible in a comment related to his favorite poem in the volume, which also appears on the back cover. If we take into account the rhythm in which Cărtărescu translates, the fact that the following American poetry books with the same publisher appear in the Gemini series and in bilingual format, whereas Cărtărescu never publishes translations alongside the originals, one may be right to assume this was the translator’s project. At Paralela 45 the translation of Simic was followed by that of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land368 in 2004 by young translator Alex Moldovan—“[a] free-lance translator and a self-declared agnostic, [who] included on his list of translated works titles from philosophy, theology, as well as some poetry signed by authors such as Charles Taylor, Joseph Ratzinger or William Blake.” (Bîrsanu 2014: 246) As noted by Bîrsanu, “the publication of this version registered no echo whatsoever on the Romanian literary scene,” (247) probably because of the personal nature of a project by a young translator that was not a published author at the time. Finally, the last poetry book with Paralela 45 in our corpus is Sylvia Plath’s Selected Poems369 translated and introduced by Elena Ciobanu in 2012. Plath’s rendition and publication into Romanian appear to be Ciobanu’s own endeavour, a classic example of collaboration with an established publisher that sits on the boundary between mainstream and indie publishing. The translator had defended her Ph.D. thesis on Plath’s poetry in 2008 and the influence of her scholarly interest reflects heavily on the book. The poems are preceded by a lengthy academic preface both in English and Romanian, in which no reference is made to the translation process and which is followed by a list of works cited, a detailed bibliography, a short bio note, and 368 Eliot, T.S. 2004. The Wasteland (Alex Moldovan, Trans.). Pitești: Paralela 45. 369 Plath, Sylvia. 2012. Poeme alese (Selected Poems). (Elena Ciobanu, Trans.) Pitești: Paralela 45. 275 a list of Plath’s published books. Ciobanu’s bio mentions her interest in the Anglophone world and her role as a curator of a rubric dedicated to Anglophone literatures in the literary magazine Ateneu, things that all suggest a personal project. Alex Moldovan’s ignored rendition of Eliot’s The Wasteland might have been a direct competitor of the republication370 by mainstream Cartea românească, run by the Romanian Writers’ Union. This bilingual book, coordinated by reputed British literature professor Lidia Vianu, contains two versions previously offered by Ion Pillat (1930) and Aurel Covaci (1973), and appears to observe the guidelines of mainstream publishing: established authors, established translators, and established endorsers. The same guidelines are observed by Humanitas in their volume of T.S. Eliot’s Selected Poems371 published in 2011. Humanitas collaborates with Ștefan Stoenescu—the Anglophone literature specialist whom I presented in Chapter 3—for the preface and with Professor Ioana Zirra for the chronology. This volume reunites old versions by Mircea Ivănescu and new translations by Sorin Mărculescu—seasoned translator of Cervantes—, Șerban Foarță—in my opinion the best Romanian poetry translator—, and Adriana Carmen Racoviță—a lecturer of English and seasoned translator herself—, all qualified as excellent by the numerous reviews after publications (Grigore 2012a, Grigore 2012b, Dima 2012). The interest of all these presses in T.S. Eliot ranks him first in node centrality in G and G0 and places Humanitas second after Paralela 45 in Eigen centrality, thus second in the general network in terms of influence. In our analysis, Humanitas does not owe its position to a large portfolio, but to their strategic translation of Eliot, an author translated by other important nodes. In the absence of such 370 T.S. Eliot. 2000. The Waste Land / Țara pustie (Ion Pillat, Aurel Covaci, Trans.). București: Editura Cartea românească. 371 Eliot, T. S. 2011. Opere poetice. 1909-1962 (Selected Poems (1909-1962)) (Mircea Ivănescu et. al., Trans.). București: Humanitas Fiction. 276 translation, Humanitas would have been one of the many small players that make up translated poetry publishing in Romania. Unlike the Eliot translation, not much endorsement except for the translator’s name was needed for Bob Dylan’s Blowing in the Wind372, published by Humanitas in 2012. Praised by a single reviewer befoere Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, as we have seen in the previous subchapter, Cărtărescu’s translation is not an exquisite rendition, but probably helped boost sales figures for a series that reportedly undersells (Dinițoiu 2017). Although the policy underlining the poetry series at Humanitas Fiction is for the Romanian renditions to be done by “important poet-translators,” (Dinițoiu ibid.: web) no other book has the name of the translator in the very title. The project most likely stemmed both from the translator’s interest in Dylan’s poetry and from Comănescu’s affinity for the American artist’s music, one of the many she was introduced to by Cornel Chiriac’s acclaimed radio show in the early 1970s. Asked in a recent interview about the books and music that shaped her destiny, Comănescu admits to having been ostensibly influenced by American hippie counterculture: We used to like all important Anglo-American artists. Especially those dubbed the flower-power generation. When I was in high-school and Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin died, we wore mourning lapel bands. Profs would ask us what happened and we would answer that a relative of ours had died. We were in mourning for a month after Jimi and Janis died. Even the American poetry we read towards the end of the highschool years was influenced by their music. (Mincan 2014: web) This hypothesis is not far-fetched, as further translations373 from Dylan’s work and biography have been published to date in the very series that bears her own first name, “Raftul Denisei” (Denisa’s bookshelf), even if Dylan’s Selected reportedly didn’t sell as expected (Dinițoiu ibid.). Still, four years after publication, Humanitas was still looking for ways to promote the book and commissioned 372 Dylan, Bob. 2012. Suflare în vânt (Blowing in the Wind) (Mircea Cărtărescu, Trad.). București: Humanitas Fiction. 373 Dylan, Bob. 2015. Cronica vieții mele (vol. I, Dan Silviu Boerescu, Trans.). Bucharest: Humanitas Fiction; Dylan, Bob. 2016. Tarantula (Sorin Gherguț, Trans.). Bucharest: Humanitas Fiction. 277 Adevărul, one of the best-selling daily journals, to feature a presentation of the volume, accompanied by two translated poems and videos of Bob Dylan’s songs on the occasion of Dylan’s being awarded the Nobel for literature. The feature reveals that it has been Cărtărescu who had picked the one hundred poems for the anthology (Ghioca 2016: web). Another article in 2016, this time an opinion piece by Mihaela Ursa, sees the Humanitas translation as an ideological repossession: “The ideological confiscation of Bob Dylan by the Communist dogma through Adrian Păunescu and his “Flacăra” literary circle has only been rectified with Cărtărescu’s version.” (Ursa 2016: web). In her view, although these versions cannot be put to music, they are an excellent poetic rewriting and where “Păunescu used Dylan as a songwriter Cărtărescu reinvented a poet.” (id.) The critical bias thus becomes obvious, as Dylan is both a songwriter and a poet, one that needs not be reinvented the way I have described in the previous section. Cărtărescu’s preference for the translation of lyrics has been manifest since 2005, when he translated thirty-two poems for the monograph374 dedicated to Leonard Cohen by Romanian literary critic and academic Mircea Mihăieș, a long-time self-declared fan of the Canadian poet and singer. The translation rights for the poems in Let Us Compare Mythologies (1956) and The Spice- Box of Earth (1961) had been granted by the late poet himself, whom Mihăieș personally had met at a certain point. The Romanian version of the poems, published by Polirom (Figure 22), produce a mixed reaction: Mircea Cărtărescu’s translation of Leonard Cohen’s poems is accurate and is an event in itself. Cărtărescu is one of the most important Romanian poets, one of the reasons why this translation cannot go unnoticed. But we have to say that it does not produce a big revelation about the quality of Cohen as a poet. Those who are familiar with Cohen’s interpretation of songs like “The Future” or “Everybody Knows” will certainly find it strange to read only the lyrics, let alone the lyrics Romanian. In the absence of 374 Mihăieș, Mircea. 2005/2016. Viața, patimile și cântecele lui Leonard Cohen. Cu 32 de poeme traduse de Mircea Cărtărescu. Iași: Polirom. 278 music and of the sound of the English, these lyrics sound strange, although Mircea Cărtărescu renders the original accurately. (Urian 2006: 5) The association between Cărtărescu and Mihăieș was fuelled by their common interest in Cohen and is a clear indication of a deeply personal project. Another indication is the fact that the only translation selection ever published by Cărtărescu in a periodical is one of Cohen’s poems in 2003375, two years before they were featured in a larger selection in Mihăieș’s book, and under a similar title formula to his translation of Dylan with Humanitas—[...] în traducerea lui Mircea Cărtărescu—an acknowledgment of the translator’s prominent literary persona. Polirom had been the first to translate Cohen’s Beautiful Losers and The Favorite Game in 2003 and their continued interest in Cohen resulted in 2006 in a translation of his poetry volume Book of Longing.376 This time, Polirom commissioned Șerban Foarță and Cristina Chevereșan. Foarță, considered by many a language genius and untranslatable as a poet, offers an excellent version that focuses on the musical quality of the originals and observes the prosody. Figure 22. Translation projects associated with mainstream Polirom and indie Scrisul românesc. Legend: red = mainstream; green = indie. 375 Cohen, Leonard. 2003. “Leonard Cohen în traducerea lui Mircea Cărtărescu.” In România literară 28. 376 Cohen, Leonard. 2006. Cartea aleanului (Book of Longing) (Cristina Chevereșan and Șerban Foarță, Trad.). Iași: Polirom. 279 The Cohen translation was the first in a Polirom series which continued in 2007 with Bukowski’s Love is A Dog from Hell. 61 Erotic Poems377, translated by young poet Dan Sociu. The volume was met with contradictory reviews: while Iulia Popovici praised Sociu for transferring the sound and direct language of his own poetry in his version of Bukowski and saw this as a rare advantage in poetry translation into Romanian (Popovici 2007), Paul Gabriel Sandu equated Sociu’s treatment of the original poems with a bull in a china shop (Sandu 2012). Two years after the translation of Bukowski poems Polirom published Sociu’s translation of Irish poet Seamus Heaney, an anthology put together by the poet-translator himself. However, the publishing house might not have been interested in e. e. cummings, as in 2011 the translator takes this new translation project378 to a different publisher, Art Press. The hypothesis according to which the translator’s tastes and decision to translate cummings played a significant role in the publication of the book is also grounded in the fact that cummings’s volume is the only foreign poetry title in the publisher’s catalogue to date. Moreover, unlike the more substantial translations published with Polirom, this published version of cummings has only 80 pages, including illustrations. As far as the illustrations are concerned, they bind all three translations by Sociu like a red thread, irrespective of the publisher, which may be indicative of a certain vision on the translator’s part. Polirom expanded their series of translations from U.S. contemporary poetry with Allen Ginsberg379 in 2010 and Edward Hirsch380 in 2017. The format and design of these two new books 377 Bukowski, Charles. 2007. Love is A Dog from Hell. 61 Erotic Poems (Dragostea e un cîine venit din iad. 61 de poeme erotice) (Dan Sociu, Trad.; Gorzo, Il.). Iași: Polirom. 378 e. e. cummings. 2011. Poeme erotice (Erotic Poems) (Dan Sociu, Trans.; Tudor Jebeleanu, Il.): București: Editura Art. 379 Ginsberg, Allen. 2010. Howl și alte poeme. (Howl and Other Poems.) (Domnica Drumea and Petru Ilieşu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. 380 Hirsch, Edward. 2017. Focul viu. Poeme vechi și noi. 1975-2010 (Al. B. Stănescu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. 280 differ considerably from the volumes translated by Sociu, and they are not accompanied by any illustrations or paratexts, except for brief author biographies on the inside covers and blurbs by established American authors or literary publications on the back covers. Although awarded a translation prize, the only extensive review of it to date does not address the Romanian version in any way and only comments on Ginsberg’s literary magnitude (Pîrvan-Jenaru 2011). The “elegant and precise” (Iovănel 2017) translation of Hirsch’s poems was published alongside a translation of his acclaimed How to Read a Poem and Fall in Love with Poetry appropriately curated by Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Press in the same city. It was Hirsch’s translator, Bogdan Alexandru Stănescu, the coordinator of Polirom’s world literature series, who said that in poetry translation the competition is fierce and everything boils down to money. In this context, the association of the two titles in a simultaneous launch appears as a combo meant to work against poetry’s hard sell. Polirom appears in the main component (G0) of the graph due to an infusion of nodes brought along by Scrisul românesc, otherwise each of these publishers would have belonged in different smaller components and would not have been so visible in the network. It was this small press in Craiova that published Hirsch for the first time, via Carmen Firan’s transnational network, in a bilingual volume,381 three years before Polirom did; and it was due to this network that Hirsch visited Romania and took part in the Literature and Translation International Festival in Iași in 2014, where Stănescu, Bădulescu and Andriescu, his future translators, met him. Besides his participation in this festival, the small press facilitated a book launch in the popular Bastilia bookstore in Bucharest and organized a round table together with the prestigious literary journal Observatorul cultural, thus checking all the promotion boxes normally associated with mainstream publishing. 381 Hirsch, Edward. 2014. Foc nocturn (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.). Craiova: Scrisul românesc. 281 Both small presses and individual translators appear to follow the same strategies to promote a book, sometimes with more success than mainstream publishers; for example, the 2014 translation382 of John Berryman’s Dream Songs by Radu Vancu, published with independent Max Blecher Press. This volume has benefited from the largest number of reviews of all contemporary U.S. poetry translations. While some of them insist on the differences between his version and the version published by Mircea Ivănescu in his 1986 anthology (Nedelea 2014; Chivu 2014), most of them are praising and salute the critical apparatus that accompanies the translation and situates Berryman in a literary context meant to guide the readers that are not familiar with his poetry (Coande 2014; Dinițoiu 2014). Although numerous and generally positive, the reviews never truly address the quality of translations and mostly analyze Berryman’s motifs and the similarity between his work and the work of Romanian Mircea Ivănescu, his first poet-translator and Vancu’s own mentor. Even if the translator is well aware of Berryman’s sophistication in terms of poetic technique and even explains in detail in his postface the prosodic structure of the 50 poems he chose, he does not seem to render the structure in Romanian and focuses instead on rendering Berryman’s “verbal jungle”—the colloquial vocabulary and intentional language mistakes. However, more of a publishing event than a felicitous translation, Berryman’s Dream Songs remain their translator’s project and the translator’s gift to Romanian literature. Vancu entrusts the book to long- time friend Claudiu Komartin and his Max Blecher Press, but the back cover features a second publisher, Armanis, based in Vancu’s hometown Sibiu. Deferred for quite a long time because of copyright issues, the translation might have been possible due to the financial support of the latter press, as this is the only title in Max Blecher’s portfolio that has ever been co-published. 382 Berryman, John. 2013. Cântece vis (Radu Vancu, Trans.). Bistrița: Casa de editură Max Blecher. 282 That year Max Blecher Press published another poetry volume, this time by Jerome Rothenberg,383 co-translated by Raluca and Chris Tanasescu. To our knowledge, only one review has been published to date, one that praises both the selection and the translation: Varied and surprisingly representative for the work of a poet of such caliber, the anthology put together by Raluca & Chris Tanasescu—which is not to quote selectively, but looked at, read and uttered in a loud voice—is a tour de force for which the two translators cannot be complimented enough. (Chivu 2014: web). However ignored by reviewers, like many other translations, the launch was actually a series of events meant to have Rothenberg meet in person as many Romanian writers and poetry readers as possible: besides taking care of the translation, the translators applied for funding with the United States Embassy in Bucharest so that Rothenberg could attend the book launch in Bucharest and receive a fee; they also asked the local Jewish Community for support to cover daily incidentals; they copy-edited the manuscript and organized three book launches—at the book fair, in a posh literary lounge, as well as at the Jewish Theatre, and took the poet and his spouse on a flash-trip to the Romanian mountains. At the end, they paid for the whole print run, out of which they asked for a third for further distribution in their own network. The intervention of the press in the whole process was related only to the professional design and printing of the book. In addition, Komartin and graphic designer Ana Toma, the two founders of the press, took part actively in most of the events organized and hosted the poet and the translators during one of their poetry reading circles, Institutul Blecher.384 The same modus operandi was observed four years before, when C. Tanasescu successfully applied for funding with the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest to bring poet David Baker to Romania for 383 Rothenberg, Jerome. 2013. Mistici, hoți și nebuni (Raluca & Chris Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans.). Bistrița: Casa de editură Max Blecher. 384 The Blecher poetry workshops (Institutul Blecher) have been organized by Komartin for the past 9 years (168 editions as of March 3, 2018) without any financial support (Crăciun 2017). 283 the launch of his translated book—The Alchemical Man.385 The book was presented to Romanian audiences in a series of various happenings, from book launches at that year’s book fair in Bucharest to readings at the U.S. Embassy and a lecture at the University of Bucharest’s Department of American Studies. The first and last translation books related to the two Tanasescus were handled differently. In 2007, C. Tanasescu entrusted Vinea Press, run by poet Nicolae Tzone and focused exclusively on poetry and avantgarde literature, with the production and printing of Ilya Kaminsky’s Dancing in Odessa,386 for which he paid a certain amount. The publisher presented the book at the 2007 Gaudeamus bookfair and distributed it in several bookstores, as well as through direct orders he personally mailed. However precarious the financial state of Vinea,387 Tzone is the only Romanian independent publisher that regularly presents his titles at the Salon du livre in Paris in spectacular formats and on luxury paper (Andrei 2017). Relying heavily on his network of friends388 and on his own creative stubbornness, as well as on a totally flexible in-home printing scheme, Tzone manages to offer every year fresh copies of all the books he has published since 1990 and will probably never say that a certain title sold out. A totally different type of collaboration was established with Tracus Arte regarding the translation of Canadian Seymour Mayne’s word sonnets:389 the two co-translators submitted the 385 Baker, David. 2009. Omul alchimic (Alchemical Man. Selected Poems). (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). București: Editura Vinea. 386 Kaminsky, Ilya. 2007. Dansând în Odessa (Dancing in Odessa). (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). București: Editura Vinea. 387 Although in very evasive terms, Tzone does admit to the financial instability of his press: “Somehow hazard helps too… I have never been able to work with planned budgets, at least not in Romania. First I would make the books then I would manage to cover the expenses from sales or from other sources. There’s a whole machine behind this.” (Andrei 2017: web, emphasis mine) 388 Asked how he managed to have Romanian authors translated into French and presented at the Salon du livre, Nicolae Tzone replies: “It’s very difficult, but I have very good friends, genuine professionals, that help me. I set up a kind of branch office in Paris for Vinea together with Miron Kiropol, Claudiu Soare... We are five or six people, collaborators included.” (Andrei ibid.) 389 Mayne, Seymour. 2014. Caligrafomanție (Augural Calligraphies). (Raluca & Chris Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans.). București: Tracus Arte. 284 title for consideration with the publisher and upon acceptance delivered the text of the translation and provided the book designer with a series of corrections and edits, thus fully taking care of the text editing and proofreading process. The total printing cost was supported by the publisher and the translators received approximately a fifth of the print run. The same process was probably followed by translator Marius Surleac for his translation of Marc Vincenz’s Propaganda Factory390 in 2015 with the same publisher. However financially supportive the latter, the two translations hosted by Tracus Arte completely lack reviews and promotion events. It is worth mentioning at this point that Seymour Mayne’s participation in the book launch in Bucharest in 2014 was self-funded and the only support received by the two translators from the local Embassy of Canada was the hosting of a poetry reading and cocktail at the embassy’s headquarters. Finally, Mayne’s reading and lecture at the University of Bucharest’s Department of Canadian Studies was made possible because of translator C. Tanasescu’s long-time network at the University of Bucharest. Private initiative has also been salient in projects like Cosma’s translation of Clarke391 and Mindock392 (cf. section 2.2.3) and appears to have fuelled most of Olimpia Iacob’s author-volumes and anthologies. Iacob, the most prolific translator of U.S. and Canadian poetry selections in print periodicals, appears in this network in G2, thus immediately after big players like Humanitas Fiction or Paralela 45. She has been publishing stand-alone collections for some of the authors in her network (such Carolyn M. Kleefeld393), but most of her translated books are either duos394 by 390 Vincenz, Marc. 2015. Fabrica de propagandă sau apropo de copaci (Marius Surleac, Trans.). București: Tracus Arte. 391 Clarke, George Elliott. 2006. Poeme incendiare (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). Oradea: Cogito. 392 Mindock, Gloria. 2010. La portile raiului (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). Iași: Ars Longa Press. 393 Cf. Section 2.1.4, footnotes 97 and 98. 394 Although the translator refers to such books featuring a Romanian and an American poet as anthologies, we consider them author-collections. 285 English-language poets coming from different cultures (such as the poetic dialogue395 between American Vince Clemente and Welsh writer Peter Tabith-Jones), or duos by a Romanian and an American writer396, or anthologies in which she pairs Romanian and English-language writers397 (cf. Section 2.1.4). Her work increases significantly the number of anthologies published after 1989. The first such work was George Ciorănescu’s Spicuiri din lirica americană contemporană398 (Selections of Contemporary American Poetry), published in 1993, followed three years later by Vasile Nicolescu’s Lirică universală (Universal Poetry),399 only partially dwelling on contemporary American poets—such as Sylvia Plath or W.H. Auden. The next anthology dedicated to contemporary American poetry400 was published ten years later, in 2006, by Cartea românească. Locul nimănui is the editors’ manifest against poetry taught in U.S. academia rather than a selection to reflect local taste or topics and writing techniques that could have interested a Romanian audience. In 2012, the ‘jam session book’, Nomadosophia, similar to Marin Sorescu’s Inspiration Treatise, only without the interviews and blending translations401 with original works, brings together contemporary poets that were popular in anthologies before 1989, such as Elizabeth Bishop and Gwendolyn Brooks, with authors whose work had never been translated into Romanian before, like Rae Armantrout or Frank 395 Clemente Vince and Jones, Peter Thabit.2008. Şoapte ale sufletului / Whispers of the Soul (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) Iași: Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Poezia. 396 I add to the corpus presented in section 2.1.5 (footnotes 100 and 101) the following titles: Nistor, Ioan and Wolak, Bill. 2016. Seminţe căutătoare de vânt / Wind-Seeking Seeds (Olimpia Iacob, Trans. from the English; Olimpia Iacob & Bill Wolak, Trans. from the Romanian). Satu-Mare: Editura Citadela; 397 The bibliographic references are presented in Section 2.1.4, notes 101 and 102. 398 I was unable to consult the table of contents of this anthology. However, one of the very few reviews of the anthologist’s works mentions the following contemporary poets: e. e. cummings, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, A. Ginsberg. 399 ***. 1996. Lirică universală (Vasile Nicolescu, Trans.). București: Eminescu. 400 (in alphabetical order) Will Alexander, Anselm Berrigan, Ted Berrigan, Jim Carroll, Andrei Codrescu, Clark Coolidge, Joseph Donahue, Edward Foster, Jorie Graham, Fanny Howe, Lisa Jarnot, Ronald Johnson, Robert Kelly, Laura Moriarty, Nathaniel Mackey, Harry Mathews, Eileen Myles, Murat Nemet-Nejat, Alice Notley, Geoffrey O’Brien, Michael Palmer, Simon Pettet, Ed Roberson, Leslie Scalapino, Leonard Schwartz, David Shapiro, Aaron Shurin, Eleni Sikelianos, Arthur Sze, John Taggart, Nathaniel Tarn, Tod Thilleman. 401 (in alphabetical order) Rae Armantrout, David Baker, Elizabeth Bishop, Gwendolyn Brooks, Albert Goldbarth, Fady Joudah, Philip Levine, Cate Marvin, Seymour Mayne, J.D. McClutchy, Ken McCullough, Robert Pinsky, Jerome Rothenberg, Charles Simic, Charles Wright, Frank Zappa. 286 Zappa. Finally, the anthology put together by the Zona Nouă poets, Everything in its Right Place, gathered the work of fourteen young American writers402 and insisted on the fact that these writers were being translated into Romanian for the first time. This corpus403 is undergirded by a focus on novelty and dialogue with contemporary Romanian writers rather than on established American writing and emphasizes a translating agenda fashioned by the anthologists’ networks and by a sort of resistance to the mainstream. The poetry translators’ wish to mirror the ever-morphing contemporary worldliterature in its entire diversity, not only the “peaks” that have populated the national literature-building program of translations before 1989 (Ursa ibid.), resulted in author-translator networks being built and, if such networks existed, in interpersonal relationships being exploited. The 14 components, corresponding to a range of 14 micro-programs, as Ursa calls them, reflect the self-regulation of a literary translation structure with profound ramifications in the larger literary system and justify the use of a network model that emphasizes heterogeneity. The self-regulation of such a structure, be it a network or a system, has been the direct expression of a permanent interaction with other cultures and agents, as well as of the mission many of the poet-translators embarked on in order to synchronize Romanian literature with the rest of the world and overcome the European bias. I would conclude this final chapter by saying that the transnational logic of the post-Cold War era meant not only an economic reconfiguration of the book market, but a refashioning of poetry translators’ agency, who took upon themselves more than ever before the task of refreshing literary practices and their own writing through translation. 402 Daniel Bailey, Gabby Bess, Mike Bushnell, Ana Carrete, Noah Cicero, Juliet Escoria, Mira Gonzalez, Sarah Jean Alexander, Tao Lin, Scott McClanahan, Ashley Opheim, Sam Pink, Michael J. Seidlinger, and Lucy K. Shaw. 403 It was impossible for me to find George Ciorănescu’s anthology, hence the lack of NetworkX measurements for the network of U.S. poetry anthologies published after 1989. 287 CONCLUSIONS “Romanians, whether in the depths of the Transylvanian provinces or in the better parts of Manhattan, respond to the word ‘poetry’ with a straightening of the shoulders, a chin-forward movement, and a far-away gaze. We may not be sure of many things, they say with that rearrangement of the body, but we are sure of our poetry,” says Andrei Codrescu in his introduction to an anthology of Romanian poetry (Born in Utopia, 2006), talking about the large number of poetry translations into English that occurred after the collapse of communism. I have argued in this research that Romanian poets have also “assaulted” (to use the word Codrescu employed for this outward cultural movement) English-language poetries in translation in a positive reflexive loop that galvanized both their own writing and the national literature in general. In doing so, they developed various types of agency that considerably multiplied once the country came to experience a free- market economy, covering a wide range of translating patterns, from no agency at all to full self- reliance, and a poetics of fecundity that testifies to their engagement with global events and with the microcosm of local literature. These literary translators’ practices of network-driven translation or of literary barters have been engendered by an assumed material precariousness (i.e., lack of funds for copyrights and a weak book market) and an overt desire for permanent change and synchronous alignment with world literature. I argued that these practices should be seen from a microcosmopolitan perspective, as paramount for establishing positive relationships with U.S. and Canadian poetries and as energizing the local literary scene, rather than simply as reflective of a ‘minor’ mode of existence in the global economic and geopolitical arenas. The proposed framework of chaos theory within a fitting paradigm of complexity is grounded on the rhizomatic structure of networks, which enables us to consider both presences and absences 288 and makes various points of entry available. On the one hand, when looking at what exists and functions according to an apparently clear pattern, chaos theory teaches us to look for disruptions and gaps and to see how these enable translation. We are trained to look at available data, but chaos theory and networks also point at absences. Translation studies has a long history of neatly stacking everything in ready-made categories, but translators cannot always univocally be slotted in sociological categories because their agency changes according to the multiple spaces they create and inhabit and to the distances they configure in relation to other cultures. The growing mobility of people and the increasing popularity of digital media permanently create new realities that morph our existence. On the other hand, when everything appears as a conglomerate of chaotic processes, chaos theory teaches us how to look for patterns, that is, stability and order. Processes in this universe are vacillations between chaos and order and they exist because they reach and strive to maintain themselves in a spot at the edge of chaos. Translations should be no exception because they are not just a body of literary intercultural work, but an embodiment of their translators’ agencies. Before they become objects that join any global or local flow of cultural goods, they need to be examined, as Hayles suggests, at “the experiential level that captures the particular individual articulation of discourse.” (1990: 193-194) Once they are produced, translations are performed or enacted by their agents, by their medium of publication and by the network in which they are circulated. In other words, they are heavily agent- and context-dependent before they become hegemonic body of works. “Relative to the body,” argues Hayles, “embodiment is elsewhere, at once excessive and deficient in its infinite variations, particularities, and abnormalities.” (1990: 186-197) Since translation embodies translators’ cultural and social makeups, the way we approach translation, I proposed, needs to be reflective of human diversity besides acknowledging the disruption, decentralization, and voids that may exist in its 289 network of circulation. To my mind, a theoretical framework that accounts for heterogeneity both in terms of predictability and in terms of variations and quirks, without reducing translation either to text, society, or culture only, is therefore most desirable. In Chapter 1 I examined the polarized center-periphery model of research and argued for the necessity of a reticulated investigation of agency by the adoption of a network model. Unlike systemic models, be they open or closed, networks enable a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, an examination of local, particular, and infinitesimal processes and, on the other, a contextualization of such small-scale processes in the wider transnational webs of connectivity cultures are involved in. In terms of agency, networks emphasize the connectionist mind of translators. The edges that connect the dots in our graph visualizations do not represent only exchanges between cultures: they may also be lines of flight that translators embark on, they may represent the cooperation translators establish with authors, publishers, and other translators. Thus, these network representations, although perhaps not the most visually clear,404 provide a layout of the distances translation sets to cross and of our potential to act through communication. Accepting the precariousness of a minor status as a galvanizing creative force in the process of translation, Chapter 2 delved into the burrows of print and digital periodicals. Backed by a network approach that showed us how Romanian poetry translators go about their daily business, what are the venues they publish in, how they connect with the authors they translate, and, most importantly, how disconnected the world of literary translation really is, I hopefully demonstrated that chance and decentralization may play a much more important role than we are trained to 404 In a keynote address for the International Seminar on Network Theory: Network Multidimensionality in the Digital Age, Latour complained that network visualizations are “not a pleasant landscape, but [it is] rather like watching lines and lines of barbed wire.” (2010: web) Others call them “hairballs.” 290 perceive. Just as Anthony Pym notes in his 2007 essay on intercultural networks, employing a structural model that allows for multiple centers “invite[s] us to grasp the ways in which [translators] have configured their own spaces,” (Pym 2007:746) and provides a context that does not make individual agency fade away against assumptions about economic power or hegemonic cultural policies. Chapter 3 shifted our attention to translated book production. Employing the same network approach, I examined translations done during a period in the history of Romania typically associated with a quest for national literary identity and with a strong control of the book market by communist ideology. My research showed that, even under such circumstances, many of these translation projects turned out to be nodes in interpersonal and transnational networks of individuals rather than institutional actors. For instance, applying this bottom-up ontological model to the production of anthologies of U.S. and Canadian contemporary poetry in Romania might provide a new explanation as to why such Canadian poetry anthologies were not as numerous as the American ones and why their publication stopped after 1989. The U.S. policies limiting migration but encouraging cultural and academic mobility bore more fruit for American cultural diplomacy than the more permissive immigration policies and the lack of consistent cultural diplomacy policies did for Canada. While Romanian intellectuals had a chance to travel to the U.S. and returned home with new ideas and aesthetic protocols engendered through translations from American literature, Canadian poetry benefited only from the interest of one émigré, Nicholas Catanoy, who grew a much more limited network with his friends and acquaintances at home. Instead of limiting the discussion to the cultural power America holds, the network approach helped me assess Romanian translators’ drive in initiating and growing a series of exchanges between the two literatures, an interpollination that owed private initiatives at least as much as they owed institutional policies. 291 Chapter 4 kept the discussion in the realm of book publishing, but attempted to emphasize the multiple social and cultural levels of existence on which a certain text can operate in a certain literature at any given time as a result of their translators’ agency. I have examined rock lyric translations and how the network effect of radio and theater increased the popularity of indie translations compared to versions of the same text circulating via traditional book distribution channels and considered to be part of the global book market. In the second part of the same chapter, I undertook to express visually the proportion of indie publishing initiatives after 1989, a final well-meaning stab at totalizing approaches. The networks I represented in this research revealed a series of disconnected graphs with multiple centers. This took me back full-circle to the initial argument that agency in translation is better served by micro-sociological approaches, or simply by this mathematical model that may function as a point of departure for further conclusions on the socialness (or lack thereof) of superseding structures. Unlike systemic representations, which assume or at least aim at cohesiveness, my representations disclosed that a certain cohesiveness existed only in the main component (or the largest sub-network) of these networks. Since the main components account for 72% of the network or less, then I would like to argue that they should not be retained as the only measure of the translation landscape because that would mean ignoring the other 28%. In retrospect, this dissertation could have been organized in different ways. I could have settled on a smaller part of the corpus and analyzed it in closer detail, down to the nitty-gritty of, let’s say, how much a certain co-translator weighs in the economy of a 100-author anthology and of the whole respective network. That would have probably appealed more to statistically-inclined minds. I could have only looked into indie publishers to determine their role in the network or only into print periodicals as potentially relevant for the whole activity of contemporary poetry 292 translation in Romania. But I felt that such approaches would not have been sufficient because these networks to do not exist in a vacuum: what appears in print periodicals may also appear in digital journals, in author-collections, or/and in anthologies and how all these media, venues, and methods influence each other on various levels intimately imbricated and mutually dependent. In other words, the translation of American and Canadian poetries into Romanian is a complex network (or a network of networks), and accounting for only one of these networks may significantly compromise the accuracy and relevance of the account. Also, I chose not to spend too much time or effort on meticulously differentiating between mainstream and indie since this aspect is most likely far from being as consequential as establishing how much and in what ways each publisher, irrespective of their status, contributes to the overall phenomenon. My purpose may seem therefore too ambitious: first, to present as much as possible of a corpus that has never been broached in TS and that may or may not be approached again by other scholars; second, to identify agency patterns that rarely make it into scholarly work on literary translation because such approaches are not necessarily socially sanctioned. However, they may prove essential in describing the activity of literary translation since they are reflective of human diversity. And third, to offer an interpretation of non-aggregated data different from what an inherently biased systemic mode of thinking would have offered. In trying to deal with such rich and diverse data and identifying models to analyze these complex phenomena, I feel that I have had a great ally in the burgeoning field of Digital Humanities and I will briefly summarize this aspect of my research in the final section. 293 On the Usefulness of a Digital Humanities Approach in Translation Studies I freely concede that the computational work behind this research has been strenuous. It is not easy to teach a mind that was trained in the humanities only to read code and spend weeks trying to make sense of how Python works, what are the differences between what appeared to be too many types of centrality in graph theory, or why a certain text editor used in coding in Python suddenly crashed and refused to plot an image in a specific readable format just when you thought a certain chapter was done. I could never say I can code proficiently, but I would love to be able to. I am just a “smuggler” who learned how to deploy a series of in-built libraries in Python because Python developers were smart enough to realize that their programming language should serve master craftsmen and cobblers alike. Science does help us. The new approaches championed by the field of DH have helped my research in countless ways. Most importantly, as I have argued at various points, they helped me make clear sense of a large corpus and have a hopefully unbiased rendition of it. Being able to include a large amount of data in my research, link these data, and then visualise the corpus with a single mouse click was in obvious ways more productive than trying to simply slot eighty-four translators into functional categories. To my mind, it would have been impossible to produce a coherent narrative about how they are related, because, as Pym (ibid.) argues tongue-in-cheek, network visualizations are more than just banal images that result from our joining the dots: lines (or connections) are what is actually tricky because they purport to cross distances in a way the naked eye cannot do within a large corpus. A DH-inflected approach may help us reduce the disciplinary bias caused by the subjective processes surrounding translation and may bring in a certain scientific rigor, otherwise so far 294 adopted in literary translation research only at the level of formulating one’s methodologies. Besides making my bibliographical references much more manageable, a digital approach provided me with angles that would have been less likely for me to produce through traditional TS research. Furthermore, various questions of power were unpacked by employing simple computational approaches. Instead of analyzing data with a power bias in mind, I simply let the data speak and lead me to where power lay. At this point I would like to suggest that digital humanities presents a real chance at interdisciplinarity in relation to TS, since it is not simply about the digital or the mathematical. As Michael Cronin rightfully notes, “[d]igital humanism, […] an attempt to understand the fundamental changes that have occurred in contemporary culture and society with the advent of digital tools, is a movement of critical reflection, rather than a roadshow of cyber cheerleading.” (Cronin 2013: 7, emphasis mine). By employing a wide range of research methodologies that are equally used in the humanities and in natural sciences, DH presents truly appealing interdisciplinary and collaborative prospects. In addressing the advantages of a cross-disciplinary approach, Willard McCarty does not see DH as disruptive, but as an enabler of change: “disciplines are autonomous epistemic cultures from which explorations begin and to which they usually return, bringing change with them.” (2015: 75) Change is what the full-fledged discipline of DH may bring new in TS by resorting to novel methodologies and collaborative research. Needless to say all these will not come without hardships from our peers, of which McCarty lists “incomprehension, misapprehension, indifference, hostility,” (id.) but I hope my dissertation showed that the two relevant disciplines can be meaningfully brought closer together and that such an approach may prove useful for other researchers in TS. I certainly feel that I returned to TS enriched. 295 Bibliography: Abdallah, Kristina. 2010. “Translators’ Agency in Production Networks.” In Translators’ Agency (T. Kinnunen and K. Koskinen, Eds.). Tampere: Tampere University Press, pp. 11-46. Albert, Alain. 1995. Chaos and Society. Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press; Tokyo, Japan: Ohmsha; Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec. Anderson, Maria. 2018. “The Rumpus Mini-Interview Project #127: Tara Skurtu.” Web: http://bit.ly/2r6Xblb. Last accessed: April 1, 2018. Antonesei, Liviu. 2017. “Un volum de haiku și doi poeți.” Web: http://bit.ly/2C3jzOS. Last accessed: February 7, 2018. Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. “Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.” Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Apter, Emily. 2013. Against World Literature. On the Politics of Untranslatability. London; New York: Verso Books. Arduini, S. and Nergaard, S. 2011. “Translation: A New Paradigm.” In Translation 1: 8-15. Assmann, Aleida. 2017. “Transnational Memory and the Construction of History through Mass Media.” In Memory Unbound: Tracing the Dynamics of Memory Studies (Lucy Bond, Stef Craps, and Pieter Vermeulen, Eds.). New York, Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 65-82. Bachmann-Medick, Doris (Ed.). 2014. The Transnational Study of Culture. A Translational Perspective. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. Baer, Brian. 2011. “Introduction. Cultures of Translation.” In Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts (Brian James Baer, Ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-16. Baghiu, Ștefan. 2012. “Poezie la îndemână.” In Cultura 391. Web: http://bit.ly/2C1NxqZ. Last accessed: February 16, 2018. Bak, Per, and Chen, K. 1991. “Self-Organized Criticality.” In Scientific American 1: 46-53. Bak, Per; Chao, Tang, and Wiesenfeld, Kurt. 1988. “Self-Organized Criticality.” In Physical Review 38 (1): 364-375. Baker, David. 2014. “Margento is a caravan, a circus, a symphony, and a brawl. [Blurb]” In Margento, Nomadosofia / Nomadosophy, Bistrița: Max Blecher Press. Baker, David. 2012. “Introduction.” In Hunger to Hunger. Columbus, OH: Aureole Press. http://bit.ly/2r6Xblb http://bit.ly/2C3jzOS http://bit.ly/2C1NxqZ 296 Web: http://bit.ly/2zLTnHC. Last accessed: December 29, 2017. Baker, Mona. 2014. “The Changing Landscape of Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In A Companion to Translation Studies (Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, Eds.). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Baker, Patrick L. 1995. “From Chaos to Complexity: Perspectives on Time and Society.” In Chaos and Society (A. Albert, Ed.). Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press; Tokyo, Japan: Ohmsha; Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec, pp. 101-116. Balmer, Josephine. 2013. Piecing Together the Fragments: Translating Classical Verse, Creating Contemporary Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bandia, Paul F. 2014. “Translocation: Translation, Migration, and the Relocation of Cultures.” In A Companion to Translation Studies (Sandra Berman and Catherine Porter, Eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 273-284. Barabási, Albert L. 2003. Linked: The New Science of Networks (second edition). New York: Plume. Barabási, Albert-László; Albert, Réka. 1999. “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.” In Science 286 (5439): 509–512. Barney, Darin D. 2004. The Network Society. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity. Basalamah, Salah. 2016. “Translation Studies: An Archipelago of Differences.” QScience Connect 1 (Special Issue on Translating the Gulf: Beyond Fault Lines). Basalamah, Salah. 2005. « La traduction citoyenne n’est pas une métaphore ». In TTR : traduction, terminologie, redaction 18 (2): 49–69. Bassnet, Susan; André Lefevere. 1998. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bassnett, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies (Third Edition). New York: Routledge. Bauer, Johannes M.; Latzer, Michael; Edward Elgar. 2016. Handbook on the Economics of the Internet. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Bălăceascu, Ioana. 2004. « Le courage de la créativité ». In Le français dans le monde. 334: 30-31. Bălăcescu, Ioana and Stefanink, Bernd. 2012. « Le rôle du traducteur herméneute dans la construction d’une identité européenne ». In Synergies Roumanie no. 7: 229-244. Bârna, Vlaicu. 2016. Între Capșa și Corso (3rd edition). Iași: Polirom. http://bit.ly/2zLTnHC 297 Beasley, Sandra, 2009. “From Page to Pixels: The Evolution of Online Journals.” In Poets & Writers 37(3): 59–61. Beecroft, Alexander. 2015. An Ecology of World Literature: From Antiquity to the Present Day. New York: Verso Books. Beller, Jonathan. 2006a. “The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle.” Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth College Press. Beller, Jonathan. 2006b. “Paying Attention.” In Cabinet 24. Web: http://bit.ly/2w42Ayv. Last accessed: April 20, 2018. Bennett, Karen. 2007. “Epistemicide: The Tale of a Predatory Discourse.” In The Translator, 13(2): 151-169. Berman, Antoine. 1995. “Le projet d’une critique « productive ».” In Pour une critique des traductions. John Donne. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 35-97. Bernofsky, Susan. 2014. “Magazines that Publish Translations.” Web: http://bit.ly/2Ha3sn2. Last accessed: January 30, 2018. Bertalanffy, Karl Ludwig von. 1988. General System Theory. New York: G. Braziller. Bertrand, Lise and Gauvin, Bertrand (Eds.). 2003. Littératures mineures en langue majeure. Québec / Wallonie-Bruxelles. Montréal: PUM. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London; New York: Routledge. Billey, K.T. undated. An Interview with Sjón. In Asymptote. Web: http://bit.ly/2r6qiEd Last accessed: July 28, 2017. Bingham, Matthew Smith. 2015. “Patterns of Exchange: Translation, Periodicals and the Poetry Reading in Contemporary French and American Poetry.” PhD Dissertation. University of California Berkeley. Biro, Zoltan and Rostas, Zoltan. 2001. “Images of Europe in Romania: The EU Discourse.” In Social Science in Eastern Europe (Pal Tamas and Ulrike Becker, Eds.). Berlin: GESIS, pp. 92-102. Bishop, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells. Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London; New York: Verso Books. Bîrsanu, Roxana Ș. 2014. T.S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland” as a Place of Intercultural Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bloom, Paul. 2017. Digital Fandom 2.0. New Media Studies (2nd edition). New York: Peter Lang. http://bit.ly/2w42Ayv http://bit.ly/2Ha3sn2 http://bit.ly/2r6qiEd 298 Boschetti, Anna. 2009. « Présupposés et vertus de l'échange théorique transnational ». Dans Carrefours de la sociocritique, Texte, revue de critique et de théorie littéraire (Anthony Glinoer, dir.), Toronto, Trintexte, n°45/46. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production (Randall Johnson, Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Boyden, Michael. 2011. “Beyond Eurocentrism?: The Challenge of Linguistic Justice Theory to Translation Studies.” In Translation and Interpreting Studies 6 (2): 174-18. Bradford, Lisa Rose. 2009. “The Agency of the Poets and the Impact of Their Translations. Sur, Poesia Buenos Aires, and Diario de Poesia as Aesthetic Arenas for Twentieth-Century Argentine Letters.” In Agents of Translation (John Milton and Paul Bandia, Eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 229-256. Brafman, Ori and Beckstrom, Rod.A. 2006. The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. New York: Portfolio. Buden, Boris. 2014. “Translation and the East. There is No Such Thing as an ‘Eastern European Study of Culture’”. In The Trans/National Study of Culture. A Translational Perspective (Doris Bachmann-Medick, Ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 171-180. Buzelin, Hélène. 2007. “Translations in the Making.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Wolf, M. and A. Fukari, Eds.). New York/Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 135-169. Buzelin, Hélène. 2005. “Unexpected Allies. How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in Translation Studies.” In Translation Studies 11(2): 193-218. Byrne, David and Callaghan, Gillian. 2014. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. The State of the Art. New York: Routledge. Byrne, David. 1998. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. An Introduction. London; New York: Routledge. Caldarelli, Guido, and Garlaschelli, Diego. 2009. “Self-Organization and Complex Networks.” In Adaptive Networks: Theory, Models and Applications (Thilo Gross and Hiroki Sayama, Eds.) (Springer/NECSI Studies on Complexity Series). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Caldarelli G.; Capoccia, A.; De Los Rios, P.; and Munoz, M.A. 2002. “Scale-Free Networks from Varying Vertex Intrinsic Fitness.” In Physical Review Letters 89: unpaginated. Callon, M. 1997. “Actor-Network Theory–The Market Test.” Web: http://bit.ly/2FpGj22. Last accessed: March 09, 2018. http://bit.ly/2FpGj22 299 Carlson, Thomas C. 1985. "Romanian Translations of The Raven." In Poe Studies, XVIII (2), p. 18:22-24. Casanova, Pascale. 2004. The World Republic of Letters. (M.B. DeBevoise, Trans.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Castells, Manuel. 2004. “An Introduction to the Information Age.” In The Information Society Reader (Frank Webster et al. Eds.) London; New York: Routledge, pp. 138–149. Castells, Manuel and Cordoso, Gustavo (Eds.). 2006. The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy. Washington DC: The John Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations. Călinescu, Matei. 1987. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham: Duke University Press. Călinescu, Matei. 2003. “Prefață / Foreword.” In E. A. Poe, Principiul poetic (Mira Stoiculescu, Trans.). Chişinău: Editura Litera. Cărtărescu, Mircea. 2012. “Flashback cu Boba Dylana.” In Suflare în vânt. 100 de poeme traduse de Mircea Cărtărescu. București: Humanitas Fiction, pp. 7 – 18. Ceccherelli, Andrea; Constantino, Lorenzo; and Diddi, Cristiano (Eds,). 2015. Europa Orientallis. Translation Theories in the Slavic Countries. Salerno: University of Salerno. Ceobanu, Ioana; Dinu, George C.; and Cristea, T. 2016. „Studiu privind piata de carte din România.” Web: http://bit.ly/2jgsoxQ. Last accessed: April 15, 2018. Cernat, Paul. 2016. “Traducerile fac o literatură. Pentru o istorie a literaturii române prin traduceri.” In Revista de traduceri literare 5. Web: http://bit.ly/2tYoNsK. Last accessed: July 16, 2017. Cernat, Paul. 2007. Avangarda românească și complexul periferiei. Bucharest: Cartea românească. Chalvin, Antoine; Lange, Anne; Monticelli, Daniele. 2011. Between Cultures and Texts / Entre les cultures et les textes. Itineraries in Translation History. With an Introduction by Theo Hermans / Itinéraires en histoire de la traduction. Avec une introduction de Theo Hermans. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Chelaru, Marius. 2016. “Poezia este ca un apparat foto.” In Confluente literare 1973, May 23. Web: http://bit.ly/2nSECi3. Last accessed: February 6, 2018. Chesterman, Andrew. 2009. “The Name and Nature of Translator Studies.” In Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies, no. 42, p. 13-22. Chesterman, Andrew. 2006. “Questions in the Sociology of Translation.” In Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines (J.F. Duarte, A. Assis Rosa, T. Seruya, Eds.). Amsterdam; http://bit.ly/2jgsoxQ http://bit.ly/2tYoNsK http://bit.ly/2nSECi3 300 Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chivu, Marius. 2015. “Cele mai bune reviste literare.” In Dilema veche 602. Web: http://bit.ly/2rGiJrn. Last accessed: January 26, 2018. Chivu, Marius. 2014. “Poeți americani.” In Dilema Veche 521. Web: http://bit.ly/2GuOczH. Last accessed: April 3, 2018. Ciorogar, Alex. 2016. “Neo-Biedermeier.” In Vatra 9-10: 22. Ciotloș, Cosmin. 2009. “Prefață / Foreword.” În Ioan Es. Pop, Ieudul fără ieșire (2nd ed.). Bistrița: Ed. Ninpress / Charmides. Clauset, Aaron; Shalizi, Cosma, and Newman, M.E.J. 2009. “Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data”. In SIAM 51: 661–703. Clifford, James and Marcus, George E. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography: a School of American Research Advanced Seminar. Berkley: University of California Press. Coande, Nicolae, 2014. “John Berryman – ‘o geografie a tristeţii’”. In România literară 16: 22. Colman, Felicity. 2010. “Rhizome.” In The Deleuze Dictionary (Revised Edition) (Adrian Parr, Eds.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 232-235. Comarnescu, Petru. 1933. Homo Americanus. București: Vremea. Constantinescu, Muguraș. 2009. « La traduction littéraire en Roumanie au xxie siècle : quelques réflexions. » In META: Journal des traducteurs, 54(4), p. 871-883. Constantino, Lorenzo. 2015. “Translation Theories in the Other Europe: The Polish Tradition.” In Translation and Interpreting Studies 10:2: 243-262. Cotrău, Liviu. 2014. “Edgar Allen Poe in Romanian Translation.” In Translated Poe (Emron Esplin and Margarida Vale de Gato, Eds.). Bethlehem: Lehig University Press, pp. 75-86. Cotter, Sean. 2014. Literary Translation and the Idea of a Minor Romania. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Electronic. Cotter, Sean. 2011. “Romania as Europe’s Translator.” In Contexts, Subtexts and Pretexts (Brian James Baer, Ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 79-96. Cotter, Sean. 2008. “The Soviet Translation: Romanian Literary Translators after World War Two.” In META : Journal des traducteurs 53 (4): 841-859. http://bit.ly/2rGiJrn http://bit.ly/2GuOczH 301 Crăciun, Andrei. 2017. “Claudiu Komartin, tânăr poet român: “Merită să trăiești pentru poezie”.” In Viitorul României, February 02. Web: http://bit.ly/2Giu8AR Last accessed: March 20, 2018. Crăciun, Gheorghe. 2009. Aisbergul poeziei moderne (ediția a doua). Pitești: Paralela 45. Crețu, Stănuța. 2007. “Margareta Sterian.” In Anuar de lingvistică și istorie literară, t. XLVII-XLVII, 2007-2008, București, pp. 357-366. Web: http://bit.ly/2usn1Ct. Last accessed: July 3, 2017. Crogan, P. and Kinsley, S. 2012. “Paying Attention: Toward a Critique of the Attention Economy.” Culture Machine, 13: 1-29. Web: http://bit.ly/2r4Iori. Last accessed: December 12, 2017. Croitoru, Dan. 1999. “Relansarea unei reviste: Revista româno-americană.” In România literară 8. Web: http://bit.ly/2jgJrQj. Last accessed: July 16, 2017. Cronicar. 2007. “Actualitatea.” In România literară 33. Web: http://bit.ly/2vSIiri. Last accessed: January 14, 2018. Cronin, Michael. 2016. “Reading the Signs. Translation and the New Regimes of Attention.” In Amodern 6. Web: http://bit.ly/2DQrYbe. Last accessed: January 14, 2018. Cronin, Michael. 2013a. “Translation and Globalization.” In Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (Carmen Millán, Francesca Bartrina, Eds.). London; New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 2013b. Translation in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 2013c. “Doing the Translation Sums: Colonial Pasts and Digital Futures.” In Language and Translation in Postcolonial Literatures: Multilingual Contexts, Translational Texts (Simona Bertacco, Ed.). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group. Cronin, Michael. 2012. The Expanding World. Towards a Politics of Microspection. New York: Verso Books. Cronin, Michael. 1998/2010. “The Cracked Looking Glass of Servants.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies (Mona Baker, Ed.). London; New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 2009. “Minority.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha), 2nd ed., London; New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 2006. Translation and Identity. New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 2003. Translation and Globalization. New York: Routledge. Cronin, Michael. 1995. “Altered States: Translation and Minority Languages.” In TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, vol. 8, n° 1, p. 85-103. http://bit.ly/2Giu8AR http://bit.ly/2usn1Ct http://bit.ly/2jgJrQj http://bit.ly/2vSIiri http://bit.ly/2DQrYbe 302 Da, Nan Z. 2014. “Occasionality: A Theory of Literary Exchange between US and China in the Nineteenth Century.” University of Michigan. David, Emilia. 2016. Poezia generației ‘80: intre intertextualitate și “performance”. București; Editura Muzeului literaturii române. DeLanda, Manuel. 2006. A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London; New York: Continuum. Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix. 1980. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Brian Massumi, Trans.). New York: Continuum Books. Deleuze, Giles and Guattari, Felix. 1986. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. (Dana Polan, Trans.) Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. De Swaan, Abram. 2010. “Language Systems.” In The Handbook of Language and Globalization (Nikolas Coupland, Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Blackwell. Dima, Simona-Grazia. 2012. “T.S. Eliot sau aventura poetică totală.” In România literară 42: 22. Dimitrova, B. E., 2005. Experience and Explicitation in the Translation Process. New York; Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dinițoiu, Adina. 2017. “Denisa Comănescu: ‘Lui Amos Oz nu m-aș sfii să-i dau oricând un telefon.’” In Literomania 49 (December). Web: http://bit.ly/2qvzjtK. Last accessed: January 6, 2018. Dinițoiu, Adina. 2014. “John Berryman tradus de Radu Vancu.” In Bookaholic, December 12. Web: http://bit.ly/2pPJ9mn. Last accessed: March 28, 2018. Dobrescu, Caius. 2011. “The Phoenix That Could not Rise. Rock Culture in Romania, 1960–1989.” In East Central Europe 38 (2-3): 255-290. Dorian, Gellu. 2011. “Țara celor mai multe reviste literare.” In România literară 16. Web: http://bit.ly/2JFyX8C. Last accessed: January 26, 2018. Dorogovtsev, S.N. and Mendes, J.F.F. 2003. Evolution of Networks. From Biological Nets to Internet and WWW. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drace-Francis, Alex. 2012. “Paradoxes of Occidentalism: On Travel Literature and Travel Writing in Ceaușescu's Romania. In Travel Writing (Tim Youngs and Charles Forsdick, Rds.). New York: Routledge, pp. 47-64. Drucker, Johanna. 2016. “Graphical Approaches to the Digital Humanities.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 238-250. http://bit.ly/2qvzjtK http://bit.ly/2pPJ9mn 303 Eliot, T. S. 1931. “Preface.” In Harry Crosby, Transit of Venus. Paris: Black Sun Press, p. ix. Emmeche, Claus. 2004. “At Home in a Complex World: Lessons from the Frontiers of Natural Science.” In The Significance of Complexity. Approaching a Complex World through Science, Theology, and the Humanities (Kees Van Kooten Niekerk & Hans Buhl, Eds.). Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 21-46. Erdős, Paul and Rényi, Alfréd. 1959. “On Random Graphs. I”. Publicationes Mathematicae 6: 290–297. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1992. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem.” In Lawrence Venuti (Ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 162-167. Fichter, Madigan. 2011. “Rock ’n’ Roll Nation: Counterculture and Dissent in Romania, 1965–1975.” In Nationalities Papers 39 (4): 567–585. Fishkin, Shelley Fisher. 2004. “Crossroads of Cultures: The Transnational Turn in American Studies.” Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, November 12, 2004. American Quarterly 57/1: 17-57. Flanders, Julia and Jannidis, Fotis. 2016. “Data Modeling.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 229-237. Flemming-May, Rachel A. and Green, Harriet. 2016. “Digital Innovations in Poetry: Practices of Creative Writing Faculty in Online Literary Publishing.” In Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (4): 859-873. Flynn, Peter. 2013. “How Eurocentric is Europe?” In Eurocentrism in Translation Studies (Luc van Doorslaer and Peter Flynn, Eds.). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins. Folaron, Debbie. 2015. “Introduction: Translation and Minority, Lesser-Used and Lesser-Translated Languages and Cultures.” In JoSTrans. The Journal of Specialised Translation 24: 16-27. Folaron, Deborah and Buzelin, Hélène. 2007. “Introduction. Connecting Translation and Network Studies.” In META : Journal des traducteurs. 52(4): 605–642. Fortunato, Santo, Cohen, Reuven and Havlin, Shlomo. 2011. “Complex Networks.” In Journal of Statistical Physics 142 (3): 640–641. Foster, Ed. 20017. “We’ll Always Have Bucharest.” In American Book Review 28 (5): 7-8. Franck, Georg. 1999. “The Economy of Attention” In Telepolis web: http://bit.ly/2HC2iA6. Last accessed: April 23, 2018. 304 Gao, Jianxi; Buldyrev, Sergey V., Stanley, H. Eugene; Havlin, Shlomo. 2011. “Networks Formed from Interdependent Networks.” In Nature Physics 8 (1): 40–48. Galvin, Rachel J. 2014. “Poetic Innovation and Appropriative Translation in the Americas.” In A Companion to Translation Studies (Sandra Berman and Catherine Porter, Eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 479-491. Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and Complex. New York: W. H. Freeman. Gentzler, Edwin. 2013. “Response.” In Translation Studies 6 (3): 342-347. Gentzler, Edwin. 2008. Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. London, New York: Routledge. Gezari, Janet and Hartman, Charles. 2010. “Dylan’s Covers.” In Southwest Review 95 (1-2): 152-166. Ghioca, Florin. 2016. “Din poemele lui Bob Dylan, traduse de Mircea Cărtărescu.” In Adevărul, October 13. Web: http://bit.ly/2GhVJWD. Last accessed: March 28, 2018. Ghiu, Bogdan. 2015. Totul trebuie tradus. Noua paradigmă (un manifest). București: Cartea românească. Goldhaber, Michael H. 1997. “The Attention Economy and the Net.” In First Monday (2)4: Web: (http://bit.ly/2JE79Bw). Last accessed: April 23, 2018. Goldiș, Alex. 2018. “Beyond Nation Building: Literary History as Transnational Geolocation.” In Romanian Literature as World Literature (M. Martin, C. Moraru, and A. Terian, Eds.). London; New York; Oxford; New Dehli; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 95-114. Goldstein, Jeffrey. 1995. “Using the Concept of Self-Organization to Understand Social System Change: Strengths and Limitations.” In Chaos and Society (A. Alberts, Ed.). Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press; Tokyo, Japan: Ohmsha; Sainte‐Foy, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec, pp. 49-62. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2014. “Is Habitus as Conceived by Pierre Bourdieu Soluble in Translation Studies?” In Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies (G. M. Vorderobermeier, Ed.). Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, pp. 59-72. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2005. “A Bourdieusian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances. Field, ‘Habitus’, Capital and ‘Illusio’.” In The Translator 11(2): 147-166. Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2007. Pratique sociale de la traduction : le roman réaliste américain dans le champ littéraire français, 1920-1960. Arras: Artois presses université. http://bit.ly/2GhVJWD http://bit.ly/2JE79Bw 305 Gouanvic, Jean-Marc. 2006. « Au-delà de la pensée binaire en traductologie : esquisse d’une analyse sociologique des positions traductives en traduction littéraire ». TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 19 (1), p. 123-134. Grad, Sorin-Mihai. 2004. “De ce EgoPHobia?” Web: http://bit.ly/2HDUCxd. Last accessed: April 20, 2018. Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” In American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360-1380. Greenblatt, Stephen. 2009. “Cultural Mobility. An Introduction.” In Cultural Mobility: A Manifesto (S. Greenblatt, I. G. Županov, R. Meyer-Kalkus, H. Paul, Pál Nyíri, and F. Pannewick, Eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregersen, Niels Henrik. 2004. “Complexity: What is at Stake for Religious Reflection.” In The Significance of Complexity. Approaching a Complex World through Science, Theology and the Humanities. (K. van Kooten Niekerk; H. Buhl, Eds.) Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 135-165. Grigore, Rodica. 2012a. “T.S. Eliot. Tărîmul poeziei: [recenzie la “Opere poetice (1909-1962)”, traducere de Şerban Foarţă. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2011] In Observator cultural 350: 16-17. Grigore, Rodica. 2012b. “T. S. Eliot. Ambiguitate, detaşare, poezie: [despre vol. “Opere poetice (1909-1062)”. Ediţie bilingvă, traducere de Şerban Foarţă].” In Vatra 6-7: 68-73. Grutman, Rainier. 2016. “Migration and Territoriality in Deleuze and Steiner: Metaphors and Mixed Messages.” In Migrancy and Multilingualism in World Literature (K. Alfons Knauth and Ping- hui Liao, Eds.). Berlin; Zürich: LIT Verlag. Grutman, Rainier. 2009. « Le virage social dans les études sur la traduction : une rupture sur fond de continuité ». In Texte. Carrefours de la sociocritique, n. 45-46, 135-152. Gulea, Dan. 2010. “Scriitorul-muzician.” In LiteraturCo.az. Web: http://bit.ly/2mDQgN4. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. Hall, Donald. 1959. “The Art of Poetry No. 1. T.S. Eliot.” In The Paris Review, pp. 1-25. Web: http://bit.ly/2DsHp7u. Last accessed: March 15, 2018. Handelman, Matthew. 2015. “Digital Humanities as Translation: Visualizing Franz Rosenzweig’s Archive.” In Transit 10 (1): 1-20. Web: http://bit.ly/2jgzlit. Last accessed: April 06, 2018. Hanna, Sameh. 2016. Bourdieu in Translation Studies. The Socio-Cultural Dynamics of Shakespeare Translation in Egypt. New York: Routledge. Hayles, N. Katherine. 1990. Chaos Bound. Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. http://bit.ly/2HDUCxd http://bit.ly/2mDQgN4 http://bit.ly/2DsHp7u 306 New York: Cornell University Press. Hayles, Katherine N. 2012. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hayles, N. Katherine. 2008. How We Became Post-Human. Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hayles, Katherine N. (Ed.). 1991. Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. Heilbron, Johan and Sapiro, Gisèle. 2018. “Politics of Translation. How States Shape Cultural Transfers.” In Literary Translation and Cultural Mediators in 'Peripheral' Cultures. Customs Officers or Smugglers? (Diana Roig-Sanz and Reine Meylaerts, Eds.) London: Palgrave Macmillan. Heilbron, Johan. 2000. “Translation as a Cultural World System” In Perspectives 8(1): 9-26. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. “Towards a Sociology of Translation. Book Translations as a Cultural World- System.” In European Journal of Social Theory 2(4): 429-444. Heilbron, Johan and Sapiro, Gisèle. 2007. “Pour une sociologie de la traduction : bilan et perspectives”, in Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – Centre de Sociologie Européenne. Web: http://bit.ly/2Iv3Ix0. Last accessed: July 1, 2016. Hermans, Theo. 1997. “Translation as Institution.” In Translation as Intercultural Communication (Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarová and Klaus Kaindl, Eds.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-20. Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing. Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conferences of the Tongues. Manchester: St. Jerome. Holland, John H. 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. New York: Basic Books. Holler, Paul. 2010. “An Interview with David Baker.” In Bookslut. Web: http://bit.ly/2BFydgO. Last accessed: December 01, 2017. Hoskins, Andrew. 2011a. “Media, Memory, Metaphor: Remembering and the Connective Turn.” In Parallax 17 (4): 19-31. Hoskins, Andrew. 2011b. “7/7 and Connective Memory: Interactional Trajectories of Remembering in Post-Scarcity Culture.” In Memory Studies 4: 3. http://bit.ly/2Iv3Ix0 http://bit.ly/2BFydgO 307 Hughes, Lorna; Constantopoulos, Panos; and Dallas, Costis. 2016. “Digital Methods in the Humanities: Understanding and Describing their Use across the Disciplines.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 150-160. Inghilleri, Moira. 2016. Translation and Migration. New York: Routledge. Inghilleri, Moira. 2005. “The Sociology of Bourdieu and the Construction of the ‘Object’ in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In The Translator 11(2): 125-145. Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill. London; New York: Routledge. Ieronim, Ioana. 2000. “Translator’s Introduction / Prefața traducătorului.” In Selected Poetry / Poezii alese (Andrei Codrescu). Pitești: Paralela 45, pp. 18-23. Ionescu, Doru. 2005. Timpul chitarelor electrice: Jurnal de calatorie în arhiva TVR (vol. 1). Bucharest: Humanitas Educational. Ionescu, Doru. 2001. “A fost odată (V).” In Actualitatea muzicală 5. Web: http://bit.ly/2CYE4yq. Last Accessed: August 18, 2017. Iorga, Nicolae. 1930. America și românii din America. Vălenii de Munte: Așezamântul Tipografic Datina Românească. Iovănel, Mihai. 2017. “Elegii, mitologii.” In Scena9 HotSpot Cultural, March 27. Web: http://bit.ly/2E4Y7u8. Last accessed: April 3, 2018. Isopescu, Maria. 2013. “Buricul pământului.” Web: http://bit.ly/navelpittis. Last accessed: December 20, 2017. Jacobs, Adriana X. 2014. “The Go-Betweens: Leah Goldberg, Yehuda Amichai, and the Figure of the Poet-Translator.” In The Blackwell Companion to Translation Studies (Sandra Berman and Catherine Porter, Eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 479-491. Jay, Paul. 2010. Global Matters: The Transnational Turn in Literary Studies. London: Cornell University Press. Jeanrenaud, Magda. 2017. “Can We Speak of a Romanian Tradition in Translation Studies?” In Going East: New and Alternative Traditions in Translation Studies (Larisa Schippel and Cornelia Zwischenberger, Eds.) Berlin: Frans und Timmel. Jeanrenaud, Magda. 2012. La Traduction. Là où tout est pareil et rien n’est semblable. București: Samuel Tastet Éditeur. http://bit.ly/2CYE4yq http://bit.ly/2E4Y7u8 http://bit.ly/navelpittis 308 Jianu, Ion. 2014. “Florea Firan: „Scrisul Românesc, punte culturală între România şi SUA“.” In Gazeta de sud, September 24. Web: http://bit.ly/2zYWb47. Last accessed: January 1, 2018. Jones, Ellen. 2017. “Digital Palimpsesting: Literary Translation Online.” In The Digital Critic: Literary Culture Online (Houman Barekat, Robert Barry, David Winters, Eds.). OR Books. Digital edition. Jones, Francis R. 2018a. “The politics of literary translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Politics (F. Fernández and J. Evans, Eds.). London: Routledge Jones, Francis R. 2018b. “Biography as network-building: James S. Holmes and Dutch-English Poetry Translation.” In Palgrave Handbook of Literary Translation (J. Boase-Beier, L. Fisher and H. Furukawa, Eds.). London: Palgrave. Jones, Francis R. 2016. “Partisanship or Loyalty? Seeking Textual Traces of Poetry Translators’ Ideologies.” In Translation and Literature 25(1): 58-83. Jones, Francis R. 2015. “The Poetry Translator as Dedicated Expert.” In META: Journal des traducteurs 60 (2): 344. Jones, Francis R. 2011. Poetry Translating as Expert Action: Processes, Priorities and Networks. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jones, Francis R. 2009. “Embassy networks. Translating Post-War Bosnian Poetry into English.” In Agents of Translation (John Milton and Paul Bandia, Eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 301-326. Jørgensen, Finn Arne. 2016. “The Internet of Things.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 42-53. Kant, Immanuel. 1998. „Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, ed. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Kaufman, Mike; LeBlanc, Zoe; Lincoln, Matthew; Rochat, Yannik; Weingart, Scott. 2017. “Visualizing Futures of Networks in Digital Humanities Research.” Abstract. Web: https://bit.ly/2D6JY2x. Kennedy, Stephen. 2015. Chaos Media: A Sonic Economy of the Digital Space. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Kennedy, Steve. 2010. “A Sonic Economy.” In Code Drift: Essays in Critical Digital Studies (Arthur and Marilouise Kroker, Eds). . Accessed May 10, 2016. Kellert, Stephen H. 1995. “When is the Economy not like Weather? The Problem of Extending Chaos http://bit.ly/2zYWb47 https://bit.ly/2D6JY2x 309 Theory to the Social Sciences.” In Chaos and Society (A. Albert, Ed.). Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press; Tokyo, Japan: Ohmsha; Sainte‐Foy, Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec, pp. 35-48. Kerim, Silvia. 1999. “Cea mai mare bucurie? Faptul că trăiesc clipa de față”. In Formula As 782. Web: http://bit.ly/kerimpittis. Last accessed: December 17, 2017. Kiel, Douglas L. and Elliott, Euel (Eds.). 1996. Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences. Foundations and Applications. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Kirschenbaum, Matthrew. 2009. Interview with N. Katherine Hayles. College Park, MD, and Hillsborough, NC, January 9. Klemm, William. 2014, “Neurobiological Perspectives on Agency: Ten Axioms and Ten Propositions.” In Constraints of Agency, Annals of Theoretical Psychology (C. W. Gruber et al., Eds.), 12: 51- 88. Cham, Springer. Kohn, János. 2009. “Romanian Tradition.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Mona Baker, Kirsten Malmkjær, Eds.). London: Routledge, pp. 510-519. Komartin, Claudiu. 2011. “Antologia mea ideală din americani.” Web: http://bit.ly/2CmRfuZ. Last accessed: January 8, 2018. Lane-Mercier, Gillian. 2014. “Global and Local Languages.” In A Companion to Translation Studies (Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, Eds.) Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Larose, Karim and Lapidus, Roxanne. 2002. “Major and Minor: Crossed Perspectives.” In SubStance (Special Issue: The American Production of French Theory) 31 (1): 36-47. Latour, Bruno. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno. 2010. “Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist.” Web: http://bit.ly/2owNcEz. Last accessed: February 28, 2018. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Latour, Bruno. 1997. “On Actor-Network Theory, a Few Clarifications.” Web: http://bit.ly/2De9EqB. Last accessed October 28, 2017. Lefevere, André. 1992a. Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Framework. New York: MLA. Lefevere, André. 1992b. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London/New York: Routledge. http://bit.ly/kerimpittis http://bit.ly/2CmRfuZ http://bit.ly/2owNcEz http://bit.ly/2De9EqB 310 Lefevere, André. 1992c. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London/New York: Routledge. Levine, D. (Ed.). 1971. Georg Simmel: On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Levý, Jiří. 2011. The Art of Translation (Patrick Corness, Trans.). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins. Lionnet, Françoise and Shu-Mei, Shih (Eds.). 2005. Minor Transnationalism. Durham: Duke University Press. Littau, Karen. 2016. “Translation’s History and Digital Futures.” In International Journal of Communication 10: 907-928. Liu, Alan. 2013. “The Meaning of the Digital Humanities.” In PMLA 128 (2): 409-423. Lorraine, Tamsin. 2010. “Lines of Flight.” In The Deleuze Dictionary (Revised Edition) (Adrian Parr, Eds.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 147-148. Luca, Ioana. 2013. “Postcommunist American Dreams in Romanian Music.” In The Transnationalism of American Culture: Literature, Film, and Music (Rocio G. Davis, Ed.). New York: Routledge. Luhmann, Niklas. 2003. “Organization.” In Autopoietic Organization Theory Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Perspective (Bakken, T. and Hernes, T., Eds.). Oslo: Copenhagen Business School Press, pp. 31-52. Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Lungu-Badea, Georgiana. 2017. “Translation Studies in Romania 1. Their Synchronic and Deferred Relations with European Translation Studies. A few Directions of Research.” In Going East: New and Alternative Traditions in Translation Studies (Larisa Schippel and Cornelia Zwischenberger, Eds.) Berlin: Frans und Timmel. Lungu-Badea, Georgiana. 2013. Idei și metaidei traductive românești (secolele XVI‐XXI). Timișoara: Eurostampa. Maiorescu, Titu. 1908. “O cercetare critică asupra poeziei române de la 1867.” In Critice 1866-1907. București: Minerva. McCarty, Willard. 2016. “Becoming Interdisciplinary.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 69-83. Majdandzic, Antonio; Podobnik, Boris; Buldyrev, Sergey V.; Kenett, Dror Y.; Havlin, Shlomo; Stanley, 311 Eugene H. 2013. “Spontaneous Recovery in Dynamical Networks.” In Nature Physics 10 (1): 34–38. Malette, Martin. 1997. Traduction et chaos : pour une «traductologie dynamique». Montréal : Université de Montréal. Marais, Kobus. 2014. Translation Theory and Development Studies. A Complexity Theory Approach. New York: Routledge. Marecki, Piotr and Montfort, Nick. 2017. “Renderings: Translating Literary Works in the Digital Age.” In Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Volume 32 (1): i84–i91. Martin, Matei. 2015. ““Europa este traducere” – Interviu cu Bogdan Ghiu.” In Dilema veche 586, Web: http://bit.ly/2I0v7JR Last accessed: September 20, 2017. Maturana, H. R., Poerksen, B. 2007. Autopoiesis and Social Theory: A Conversation. In Journal of Sociocybernetics 5 (1/2): 68-73. Maturana, Humberto. 1975. “The Organization of the Living: A Theory of the Living Organization.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 7: 313-332. Mayr, Ernst. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. McMichael, Polly. 2008. “Translation, Authorship, and Authenticity in Soviet Rock Songwriting.” In The Translator 14 (2): 201-228. Medendorp, Liz. 2013. “The Power of the Periphery: Reassessing Spatial Metaphors in the Ideological Positioning of the Translator.” In TranscUlturAl 5 (1-2): 22-42. Módici Nóbrega, Thelma and Milton, John. 2009. “The Role of Haroldo and Augusto de Campos in Bringing Translation to the Fore of Literary Translation in Brazil.” In In Agents of Translation (John Milton and Paul Bandia, Eds.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257-278. Mihalache, Iulia. 2006. “Acteurs du savoir et du savoir-faire dans le marché de la traduction en Roumanie postcommuniste.” In Wolf, Michaela (Ed.), Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “Social Turn”? New Brunswick; London: Transaction Publishers. Mihalache, Iulia. 2005. Le modèle occidental et ses traductions dans une société portcommuniste : le cas de la Roumanie. Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa. Miller, J. and Page, S. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems. An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mincan, Mihai. 2012. “Interviu Denisa Comănescu: Când a murit Hendrix, am purtat doliu.” In http://bit.ly/2I0v7JR 312 Adevărul, 22.02.2014. Web: adev.ro/n1ep74. Last accessed: July 16, 2017. Milton, John and Bandia, Paul. 2009. Agents of Translation. Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins. Mironescu, Doris. 2013. “Transatlantic Tanasescu.” In Suplimentul de cultură 383. Web: http://bit.ly/2GLoRFS. Last accessed: April 08, 2018. Mitchell, Melanie. 2009. Complexity. A Guided Tour. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Mițariu, Christina Andreea. 2009. “Nicholas Catanoy – un cetățean universal în căutarea identității.” In Diaspora culturală românească – paradigme lingvistice, literare şi etnofolclorice (Ofelia Ichim, Ed.). Iași: Editura Alfa, pp. 237-247. Moceanu, Radu. 2017. “Portret: Florian Pittiș, un spirit tânăr și liber, care a onorat radioul”. Web: http://bit.ly/motupittis. Last accessed: December 16, 2017. Morgan, Bill. 1996. The Response to Allen Ginsberg. 1926-1994. A Bibliography of Secondary Resources. Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press. Morin, Edgar. 1990. Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris : ESF Éditeur. Mușat, Carmen. 2018. “After Imitation: Aesthetic Intersections, Geocultural Networks, and the Rise of Modern Romanian Literature.” In Romanian Literature as World Literature (M. Martin, C. Moraru, and A. Terian, Eds.). London; New York; Oxford; New Dehli; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 115-131. Nedelea, Gabriel. 2014. “Metabolizarea lui John Berryman.” In Ramuri 2. Web: http://bit.ly/2GiLvRY. Last accessed: March 28, 2018. Nedelea, Gabriel. 2013. “Receptarea poeziei nord-americane în literatura română: influenţe şi afinităţi.” În Ramuri 5. Web: http://bit.ly/2Iiy3xW. Accessed March 11, 2017. Negreanu, Angela. 2014. “Vremelnicie şi veşnicie în poezia Carolynei Kleefeld.” In Contemporanul- ideea europeană 8: 31. Negus, Keith. 1992. “Popular Music and Social Reality”, International Association for the Study of Popular Music. 6th International Conference. Humboldt University, Berlin, July 15th-20th 1991. In Popular Music 11 (1): 107-109. Nelson, Brian and Maher, Brigid. 2013. “Introduction.” In Perspectives on Literature and Translation: Creation, Circulation, Reception. New York: Routledge. Newmark, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall International. Newman, Mark. 2010. “Networks. An Introduction.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://bit.ly/2GLoRFS http://bit.ly/motupittis http://bit.ly/2GiLvRY http://bit.ly/2Iiy3xW 313 Nicolau, Felix. 2014. “Collaborative and Transnational Translation: MARGENTO.” In Globalization and Intercultural Dialogue. Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Iulian Boldea, Ed.). Târgu-Mureș: Arhipelag XXI Press, pp. 319-329. Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Sitting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial Context. Berkley: University of California Press. Nistor, Ioan. 2014. “Glasul zorilor şi taina creaţiei în poezia Carolynei Mary Kleefeld.” In Poezia 1: 236-239. Noica, Constantin. 1991. Jurnalul de la Păltiniș. Bucharest: Humanitas. Noica, Constantin. 1995. Modelul Cantemir în cultura noastră. București: Editura Athena. Oișteanu, Andrei. 2006. “Mircea Eliade și mișcarea hippie.” In Dilema veche 120. Web: http://bit.ly/2D077l4. Last accessed: January 6, 2018. Oldman, Dominic; Doerr, Martin; and Gradmann, Stefan. 2016. “Zen and the Art of Linked Data: New Strategies for a Semantic Web of Humanist Knowledge.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 251-273 Oloș, Ana. 2012. “Cultural Polyphony in George Elliott Clarke’s Works.” In The Round Table 2 (1). Web: http://bit.ly/2meAzMk. Last accessed: January 10, 2018. Oloș. Ana. 2007. “Flavia Cosma traduce din George Elliott Clarke.” In Cultura 5. Web: http://bit.ly/2ECVAZx. Last accessed: January 2, 2018. Paloposki, Outi. 2017. “In Search of an Ordinary Translator: Translator Histories, Working Practices and Translator–Publisher Relations in the Light of Archival Documents.” In The Translator, 23 (1): 31-48. Patraș, Antonio. 2010. “Cartea de la Curtea și alte 9 topologii (recenzie).” In România literară 37. Web: http://bit.ly/2jjkBiJ. Last accessed: January 15, 2018. Perloff, Marjorie. 2010. Unoriginal Genius: Poetry by Other Means in the New Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Perry, Thomas Amherst. 2001. Passage to Romania. American Literature in Romania. Iași; Oxford; Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies. Perry, Thomas Amherst. 1979. “How the Romanian Has Read American Literature.” In Cahiers roumains d’études litteraires 1, pp. 3-50. http://bit.ly/2D077l4 http://bit.ly/2meAzMk http://bit.ly/2ECVAZx 314 Pignuolo Ocampo, Sergio. 2016. “Dyadism in the Sociological Foundations of Luhmann and Latour: Communication and Association Compared”. In Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 155: 133-150. Pillat, Ion. 1969. Portrete lirice. București: EPLU. Piștea, Constantin. 2014. “Dylan, interpretat de Cărtărescu și Pitiș”. Web: http://bit.ly/2opbmTE Last accessed: December 17, 2017. Pîrvan-Jenaru, Dana. 2011. “Allen Ginsberg – monument literar și fenomen social.” In Observatorul cultural 560. Web: http://bit.ly/2GlAmzy. Last accessed: March 28, 2018. Poltermann, Andreas. 1992. “Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur.” In Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung/Histories, Systems, Literary Translations (Harald Kittel, Ed.). Berlin: E. Schmidt, pp. 5– 31. Pop, Aurel. 2008. “George Elliot Clarke: “Poeme incendiare”: traducere de Flavia Cosma.” In Cetatea culturală 5: 77-78. Pop, Doru. 2016. “Pop-Rock and Propaganda during the Ceaușescu Regime in Communist Romania.” In Pop Music, Culture and Identity. Breaking the Cold War Paradigm. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Popa, Ioana. 2010. Traduire sous contraintes. Littérature et communisme (1947-1989). Paris: CRNS Éditions. Popescu, Adrian. 2014. “Revista Steaua – 65.” In România literară 41. Web. http://bit.ly/2r7yGnI. Last accessed: February 08, 2018. Popovici, Iulia. 2007. “Să fii erotic, să fii singur. Despre o falsă traducere și un sincer dialog poetic.” In Observatorul cultural 385. Web: http://bit.ly/2HxZpnQ. Last accessed: March 18, 2018. Portela, Martin; Mencía, María; Pold, Søren. 2018. “Creating New Constraints: Toward a Theory of Writing as Digital Translation.” In Electronic Book Review, May 30, 2018. Web: https://bit.ly/2D8ig5G. Presner, Todd and Shepard, David. 2016. “Mapping the Geo-Spatial Turn.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 201-2012. Prigogine, Ilya. 1996. The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York: The Free Press. Pruteanu, George. 1986. “Poeții peste și sub întrebări.” In Convorbiri literare 1. Web: http://bit.ly/2JQciav Last accessed: April 02, 2018. http://bit.ly/2opbmTE http://bit.ly/2GlAmzy http://bit.ly/2HxZpnQ https://bit.ly/2D8ig5G http://bit.ly/2JQciav 315 Pym, Anthony. 2007. “Cross-Cultural Networking: Translators in the French-German Network of Petites Revues at the End of the Nineteenth Century.” In META : Journal des traducteurs 52 (4): 744–762. Pym, Anthony. 2006. “On the Social and the Cultural in Translation Studies.” In Sociocultural Aspects on Translation and Interpreting (Anthony Pym, Mariam Shlessinger, Zuzana Jettmarová, Eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pym, Anthony and Chrupała, Grzgorz. 2005. “The Quantitative Analysis of Translation Flows in the Age of an International Language.” In Less Translated Languages (Albert Branchadell and Lovell Margaret West, Eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome. Ramsay, S. 2011. Reading Machines: Toward an Algorithmic Criticism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Refsum, Christian. 2017. “When Poets Translate Poetry: Authorship, Ownership, Translatorship.” In Textual and Contextual Voices of Translation (C. Alvstad; A. K. Greenall; H. Jansen, and K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, Eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Risku, H., Rogl R., Pein-Weber, C. 2016. “Mutual Dependencies: Centrality in Translation Networks.” In JosTrans 25: 232-253. Risku, Hannah and Dickinson, A. 2009, “Translators as Networkers. The Role of Virtual Communities.” In Hermes 42: 49-70. Roig-Sanz, Diana and Meylaerts, Reine (Eds.). 2018. Literary Translation and Cultural Mediators in 'Peripheral' Cultures. Customs Officers or Smugglers? London: Palgrave Macmillan. Ruecker, Stan. 2016. “Interface as Mediating Actor for Collection Access, Text Analysis, and Experimentation.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 397-407. Sandu, Paul-Gabriel. 2012. “Camerele de tortură ale traducătorului.” In România literară 29: 22. Sapiro, Gisèle. 2010. “French Literature in the World System of Translation”. In French Global. A New Approach to Literary History (C. McDonald and S. Suleiman, Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press. Sapiro, Gisèle. 2008. “Translation and the Field of Publishing.” In Translation Studies 1 (2) : 154-166. Sapiro, Gisèle. 2007a. « Littératures étrangères. Structure et évolution de l’espace de la littérature 316 traduite en français. » In La Traduction comme vecteur des échanges culturels internationaux. Circulation des livres de littérature et de sciences sociales et évolution de la place de la France sur le marché mondial de l’édition (1980-2002). Rapport de recherche, (Gisèle Sapiro, Ed.), pp. 107-32. Paris: Centre de sociologie européenne, CNRS Éditions. Sapiro, Gisèle. 2007b. « Traduction et globalisation des échanges: le cas du français. » In Où va le livre? (Jean-Yves Mollier, Ed.). Paris: La Dispute, pp. 227-262. Sayama, Hiroki; Pestov, Irene; Schmidt, Jeffrey; Bush, Benjamin J.; Wong, Chun; Yamanoi, Junichi; and Gross, Thilo. 2013. “Modeling Complex Systems with Adaptive Networks.” In Computers & Mathematics with Applications 65(10): 1645-1664. Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2014. “Translators’ Identity Work: Introducing Micro-Sociological Theory of Identity to the Discussion of Translators’ Habitus.” In Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies (G. M. Vorderobermeier, Ed.). Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet. 2005. “How to Be a (Recognized) Translator: Rethinking Habitus, Norms, and the Field of Translation.” In Target, 17 (1): 1-26. Seyed Alavi, Seyed Mohammad. 2015. Translation of Modernity and Islam. The Case of Iran. Ottawa: University of Ottawa. Sherzer, Joel and Stolz, Thomas. 2003. Minor Languages. Approaches, Definitions, Controversies. Papers from the conference on “Minor Languages: Coming to Grips with a Suitable Definition” Bremen, June 2001. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Simeoni, Daniel. 1998. “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus.” In Target 10 (1): 1-39. Simon, Sherry. 2007. “”A Single Brushstroke”. Writing through Translation: Anne Carson.” In In Translation—Reflections, Refractions, Transformations, Paul St-Pierre, Prafulla C. Kar (Eds.). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins. Simon, Sherry and St-Pierre, Paul (Eds.). 2000. Changing the Terms. Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Simuț, Ion. 2008. “Ce s-a întâmplat cu literatura română în postcomunism - Simptomatologie generală”. In România literară 6. Web: http://bit.ly/2r9A7C8. Last accessed August 16, 2017. Singh, R., 2007. “Unsafe at Any Speed? Some Unfinished Reflections on the 'Cultural Turn' in Translation Studies.” In Translation – Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Paul St- Pierre and Prafulla C. Karr, Eds.). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins. Smith, Martha Nell. 2004. “Electronic Scholarly Editing.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schriebman; R. Siemens; and J. Unsworth). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 306-322. 317 Smith, Richard. 2015. “Agency. A Historical Perspective.” In Constraints of Agency (C. W. Gruber et al., Eds.). In Annals of Theoretical Psychology 12: 3-29. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2010. “Is Translation Studies Going Anglo-Saxon? Critical Comments on the Globalization of a Discipline.” In Why Translation Studies Matters (Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen, and Nike K. Pokorn, Eds.). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins, pp. 97-104. Solé, R. V., Corominas Murtra, B., Valverde, S., and Steels, L., 2007. “Language Networks: Their Structure, Function and Evolution.” In Complexity 15(6): 3-63. Solomon, Jon. 2014. “The Transnational Study of Culture and the Indeterminacy of People(s) and Language(s)”. In The Trans/National Study of Culture. A Translational Perspective (Doris Bachmann-Medick, Ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 69-92. Solum, Kristina. 2017. “Translators, Editors, Publishers, and Critics: Multiple Translatorship in the Public Sphere.” In Textual and Contextual Voices of Translation (C. Alvstad; A. K. Greenall; H. Jansen, and K. Taivalkoski-Shilov, Eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. (Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, Eds.) Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271-313. Sprott, J.C. 2008. “Chaotic Dynamics on Large Networks.” In Chaos 18, 023135. Stahuljak, Zrinka. 2010. “Minor Empires: Translation, Conflict, and Postcolonial Critique.” In The Translator 16 (2): 255-274. Stănescu, Bogdan-Alexandru. 2017. “Poezie: ca de obicei, inghesuiala. Una buna.” In Suplimentul de cultură 549. Web: http://bit.ly/2ElIDXn. Last accessed: March 20, 2018. Stiegler, B. 2010. Taking Care of Youth and the Generations, trans. S. Barker, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Stoenescu, Ștefan. 1986. “Portretul unei arte la vârsta deplinei înfloriri.” In Antologie de poezie americană modernă și contemporană (Mircea Ivănescu, Ed., Trans.). Cluj-Napoca: Dacia. Stoicescu, Bogdan Lucian. 2009. “In memoriam Florian Pittiş (1943 - 2007).” Web: http://bit.ly/2BzbTHX. Last accessed December 17, 2017. Strum, Shirley and Latour, Bruno. 1987. “Redefining the Social Link: from Baboons to Humans.” In Social Science Information 26 (4): 783-802. Susam-Sarajeva, Șebnem. 2014. “Response.” In Translation Studies 7(3): 335-338. Susam-Sarajeva, Șebnem. 2002. “A ‘Multilingual’ and ‘International’ Translation Studies? In http://bit.ly/2ElIDXn http://bit.ly/2BzbTHX 318 Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues (Theo Hermans, Ed.). Manchester: St Jerome, pp. 193-207. Szabo, Lucian-Vasile. 2012. “Cu Poe printre români.” In Orizont 24 (11): 20 and 31. Șercan, Emilia. 2016. Cultul secretului. Mecanismele cenzurii în presa comunistă. Iași: Polirom. Ștefan, Olga. 2008. “Anti-ghid prin lirica americană.” In Echinox 9-12. Web: http://bit.ly/2lmZayS. Last accessed: December 3, 2017. Ștefănescu, Alex. 1999. “George Ciorănescu – un European din România.” In România literară 39. Web: http://bit.ly/2w32x5E. Last accessed August 16, 2017. Ștefănescu, Alex. 2002. “La o nouă lectură: Virgil Teodorescu.” România literară 36. Web: http://bit.ly/2HXTE2h. Last accessed: July 16, 2017. Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz. 2007. “Chaos before Order: Network Maps and Research Design in DTS.” In Meta: Journal des traducteurs, Special Issue, Connecting Translation and Network Studies, (D. Folaron and H. Buzelin, Eds.) 52(4): 724-743. Tanasescu, Raluca and Tanasescu, Chris. 2018. “Translator Networks of Networks. The Case of Asymptote Journal.” In Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies. Methodological Considerations. (Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts, Eds.) New York: Routledge. Tanasescu, Chris. 2013. “Notă aspura autorului și traducerii.” In Mistici, hoți și nebuni (Jerome Rothenberg, Author; Chris Tanasescu and Raluca Tanasescu, Trad.). Bistrița: Max Blecher Press, pp. 184-186. Tanasescu, Chris. 2011. The Graph Poem (Four Poems & a Note on the Poetics). In Poems and Poetics, March 6. Web: http://bit.ly/2B51M9w. Last accessed: January 16, 2018. Tanasescu, Chris. 2010. “Poetry Thy Name is Infinity by Translation.” In Poetry International. Web: http://bit.ly/2zLTnHC. Last accessed: December 29, 2017. Tartler, Grete. 2012. “Mircea Cărtărescu şi Bob Dylan”. In România literară 52: 22. Terranova, T. 2000. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy.” In Social Text 18 (2): 33-57. Tismăneanu, Vladimir. 2012. “In Memoriam Cornel Chiriac: Un neuitat soldat al libertății.” Web: http://bit.ly/2Ed6vYC . Last accessed: January 1, 2018. Trivedi, Harish. 2006. “In Our Own Time, On Our Own Terms: Translation in India.” In Translating Others Vol. I (Theo Hermans, Ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, pp. 102-119. http://bit.ly/2lmZayS http://bit.ly/2w32x5E http://bit.ly/2B51M9w http://bit.ly/2zLTnHC http://bit.ly/2Ed6vYC 319 Tronaru, Doinel. 2007. “Posteritatea unei mari artiste.” In România liberă, September 15, 2017. Web: http://bit.ly/2vqVMW6. Last accessed: July 3, 2017. Tymoczko, Maria. 2007. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. London; New York: Routledge. Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” In META: Journal des traducteurs, 50 (4): 1082-1097. Tyulenev, Sergey. 2014. Translation and Society: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Tyulenev, Sergey. 2011. Applying Luhmann to Translation Studies: Translation in Society. London: Routledge. Tyulenev, Sergey. 2009. “Why (Not) Luhmann? On the Applicability of Social Systems Theory to Translation Studies.” In Translation Studies 2 (2): 147-162. Urian, Tudorel. 2006. “Paradoxul Leonard Cohen”. In România literară 1. Web: http://bit.ly/2r8tb8D. Last accessed: January 10, 2016. Uricariu, Ioana. 2015. “Slashings and Subtitles: Romanian Media Piracy, Censorship, and Translation.” In A Reader on International Media Piracy: Pirate Essays (Tilman Baumgärtel, Ed.). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press. Ursa, Mihaela. 2018. “Made in Translation: A National Poetics for the Transnational World.” In Romanian Literature as World Literature (M. Martin, C. Moraru, and A. Terian, Eds.). London; New York; Oxford; New Dehli; Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 309-325. Ursa, Mihaela. 2016. Suflare în vânt. In PressOne, October 16. Web: http://bit.ly/2pJ5ORo. Last accessed: March 28, 2018. Vakulovski, Mihai. 2010. Portre de grup cu generația 80. București: Tracus Arte. Vancu, Radu. 2014. “Mircea Ivănescu. Ultimul interviu.” In LaPunkt (September 2014). Web: http://bit.ly/2usBuP6. Last accessed: July 16, 2017. Van Dijck, José. 2017. “Connective Memory: How Facebook Takes Charge of Your Past.” In Memory Unbound: Tracing the Dynamics of Memory Studies (Lucy Bond, Stef Craps, and Pieter Vermeulen, Eds.). New York, Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 151-172. Van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. 2006. The Network Society. Social Aspects of New Media. London: Sage Publications. Vasilescu, Mircea. 2011. “Sînt o idealistă, ce să-i faci... - interviu cu Ioana Avădani.” In Dilema veche 494. Web: http://bit.ly/2vUObEG. Last accessed: April 28, 2018. http://bit.ly/2vqVMW6 http://bit.ly/2pJ5ORo http://bit.ly/2vUObEG 320 Vasiliu, Alex. 2005. “Un model, după 30 de ani.” In Ziarul de Iași, April 7. Web: http://bit.ly/2m0CdBa. Last accessed: January 6, 2018. Vasiliu, Luiza. 2015. “Zona nouă, un festival cu multă, multă poezie.” In Dilema veche 597. Web: http://bit.ly/2FufsNr. Last accessed: April 14, 2018. Venuti, Lawrence. 2011. “Introduction. Translation and Poetry.” In Translation Studies 4(2): 127-132. Venuti, Lawrence. 1998a. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. New York: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence (Guest Editor). 1998b. “Translation and Minority (special issue)” In The Translator. Studies in Intercultural Communication. 4:2. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. New York: Routledge. Verdery, Katherine. 1991. National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceaușescu’s Romania. Berkeley Los Angeles Oxford: University of California Press. Vermeer, Hans J. 2006. Luhmann’s “Social System” Theory: Preliminary Fragments for a Theory of Translation. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Vianu, Tudor. 1956. Literatură universală şi literatură naţională. Bucharest: Editura de stat pentru literatură şi artă. Voigt, Annette. 2012. Reductionism versus Holism. New York: Oxford University Press. Von Flotow, Luise. 1997. Translation and Gender: Translating in the “Era of Feminism.” Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Von Flotow, Luise. 2004. “Soft Diplomacy, Nation Branding, and Translation: Telling Canada’s “Story” Globally.” In In Translation. Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Paul St-Pierre and Prafulla C. Kar). New Delhi: Pencroft International, pp. 173-193. Von Flotow, Luise. 2007. “Revealing the “soul of which nation?”: Translated literature as cultural diplomacy.” In Translation. Reflections, Refractions, Transformations (Paul St-Pierre and Prafulla C. Kar, Eds.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 187-200. Vorderobermeier, Gisella M. (Ed.). 2014. Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Voyer, Anne-Sophie. 2016. “Out if Her Own Volition: Barbara Godard as a Case Study of the http://bit.ly/2m0CdBa http://bit.ly/2FufsNr 321 Translator’s Agency.” In Studies in Canadian Literature / Etudes en Littérature Canadienne, 41 (1): 65-80. Vulpescu, Ionuț. 2014. “Revistele literare, o prioritate strategică.” In Cultura 458: web. http://bit.ly/2DEUjUS. Last accessed: January 26, 2018. Wachtel, Andrew B. 2006. Remaining Relevant after Communism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Watts, Duncan H. and Strogatz, Steven J. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of 'Small-World' Networks.” Nature 393 (6684): 440-442. Welsh, Jim. 2013. “A Poet among Us Most Clearly Revealed. Selected Poems by Michael Waters.” In Alecart 10: 38-39. White, Eric Charles. 1991. “Negentropy, Noise, and Emancipatory Thought.” In Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science (N. K. Hayles, Ed.). Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 263-276. Wildgen, Wolfgang (2003). “Statistical and Psychological Minorities.” In Minor Languages. Approaches, Definitions, Controversies. Papers from the conference on “Minor Languages: Coming to Grips with a Suitable Definition” Bremen, June 2001 (Joel Sherzer and Thomas Stolz, Eds.). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. Wolf, Michaela. 2014. “The language of Europe is translation”: EST amidst New Europes and Changing Ideas on Translation.” In Target 26 (2): 224-238. Wolf, Michaela and Fukari, Alexandra (Eds.). 2007. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Woodside, Martin. 2014. “Martin Woodside reviews MARGENTO's Nomadosofia/Nomadosophy.” In Asymptote. Web: http://bit.ly/2JrQ8ek. Last accessed: April 08, 2018. Yildiz, Yasemin. 2011. Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition. New York: Fordham University Press. Zanca, Andrei. 2017. “Interferențe lirice.” In Steaua 5: 28-29. Zubașcu, Ion. 2008. “Conversații cu Carmen Firan.” In Apostrof 5 (216). Web: http://bit.ly/2CldwKH. Last accessed: January 5, 2018. Zundert, Joris J. van. 2016. “Screwmeneutics and Hermenumericals: the Computationality of Hermeneutics.” In The New Companion to Digital Humanities (S. Schreibman; R.G. Siemens; J. Unsworth, Eds.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 331-347 http://bit.ly/2DEUjUS http://bit.ly/2JrQ8ek http://bit.ly/2CldwKH 322 Annex 1. Partial Corpus405 of U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Translations in PP Steaua: “Poete americane de top.” Translator: Lavinia Rogojină DI PRIMA, Diane. 2014. “Fereastra; Cronologie; Un exerciţiu în dragoste.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 3-4: 39-40; NOTLEY, Alice. 2014. “Timp individual; Nicio lume nu e intactă; Poem.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 3-4: 36-38. HILMAN, Brenda. 2014. “Copacul miresei nu poate fi citit; Ora până te vom revedea; Aer în naraţiune.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 5-6: 33-35. KNOX, Karoline. 2014. “Plângăciosul de la bibliotecă; Inima lui; Poem în linie.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 5-6: 35-36. MAYER, Bernadette. 2014. “Eşecuri la infinit; Te opreşti la mine...; Visul lui Kristin, în noiembrie.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 7-8: 39-40. MYLES, Eileen. 2014. “Un poem american; Vis; Vis 2.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 7-8: 37-38. NAUEN, Elinor. 2014. “Gură cu motor; Ceea ce purtăm; Problema cu tine este (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.). In Steaua 9-10: 61-63. WALDROP, Rosmarie. 2014. “[Pisica atât de aproape]; [Când eram mică]; [Am apăsat câteva zile].” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 9-10: 60-61. HOWE, Fanny. 2014. “Un cântec de slavă.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.) In Steaua 11-12: 36-37. HEJINIAN, Lyn. 2015. “Elegie; Celula – fragmente.” (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.). In Steaua 1-2: 52-53. GERSTLER, Amy. 2015. Interminabila primăvară; Drum bun; Stoicii. (Lavinia Rogojină, Trans.). In Steaua 1-2: 53. Fereastra: “Traduceri din poezia americană.” Translator: Liviu Ofileanu. ANGELOU, Maya. 2011. “Încă mă ridic.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 18; BRAUTIGAN, Richard. 2011. “San Francisco.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 19; CORSO, Gregory. 2011. “Nebunul iac.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 19; DUNN, Stephen. 2011. “Poem pentru oameni care sunt neînțeles de ocupați ca să citească poezie.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 19. EDSON, Russell. 2011. “Familia maimuță.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 19; FERLINGHETTI, Lawrence. “Riscând frecvent absurditatea.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 3: 19; BISHOP, Elizabeth. 2011. “Prima moarte în Noua Scoție.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 4: 20-21; BUKOWSKI, Charles. 2011. “Un radio cu tupeu.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 4: 21; DOTY, Mark. 2011. “Metrou Nord.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 4: 20; SOTO, Gary. 2011. “O palmă roșie.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 4: 20; ALEXANDER, Elizabeth. 2015. “Blues.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 31; GIOVANNI, Nikki. 2015. “Prima mea amintire.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 31. OLIVER, Mary. “Sălbaticul ‘hăis și cea’.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 30. SADOJI, Ira. 2015. “Înmormântarea mamei mele.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 30. SIMIC, Charles. “Ochii fixați cu ace.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 30; BROWN, Jericho. 2011 and 2015. “Langston Blue.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 92: 30; GINSBERG, Allen. 2015. “136 de silabe la Centrul Dharma Rocky Mountain.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 91: 30; SZE, Arthur. 2011. “Prova binecuvântată a unei canoe Muckleshoot.” (Liviu Ofileanu, trad.) In Fereastra 2: 20; 405 This corpus complements the selections presented as footnotes in section 2.1. 323 O’HARA, Frank. 2011. “Ave Maria.” In Fereastra 2: 20. MATTAWA, Khaled. 2011. “Eccleziastice.” In Fereastra 2: 20. Cetatea culturală. Translator: Dan Brudașcu. DOVE, Rita. 2007. “Geometrie.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 96. GEX-BREAUX, Que Vadis. 2007. “Albastru profund.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 94-95; JACKSON, Angela. 2007. “Un început pentru noi începuturi.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 95- 96. KOMUNYAKAA, Yusek. 2007. “Ceară pierdută.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 92-93. MILLER, Ethelbert E. 2007. “Moise; Conversaţie spaniolă.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 94. MOORE, Lenard D. 2007. “Mesaj pentru Etheridge Knight.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 97. THOMPTON, Julius E. 2007. “Cântecul inocenţei; Muzică diabolică în Iad.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 92; COLEMAN, Wanda. 2007. “Joc de cuvinte; Las turistas negras grande.” (Dan Brudaşcu, Trans.) In Cetatea culturală 7: 91. Steaua: “Autoportret în oglinda convexă.” Translator: Alex Văsieș. HOAGLAND, Tony. 2016. “Să nu mai spui la nimeni; America.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 1: 18- 19; KOOSER, Ted. 2016. “Fermă abandonată; Tată; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 2: 29; WRIGHT, C.D. 2016. “Aproape pentru totdeauna; Frânghie imaginară; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 3: 26; CARVER, Raymond. 2016. “O după-amiază; Ce a spus doctorul; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 4: 27; BALAKIAN, Peter. 2016. “Aici și acum; O scrisoare lui Steven Wallace; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 5: 21; NURKSE, D. 2016. “Aniversare in octombrie; Mariaj in Belmont; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 6: 40; RECTOR, Liam. 2016. “Orașul ăsta; Hans citind, Hans fumând; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 7: 14-15; HAAS, Robert. 2016. “Mizerie și splendoare; Sonet; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 8: 25-26; ANGELOU, Maya. 2016. “Minciuna; Coreograf marțial; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 9: 33-34; PHILLIPS, Carl. 2016. “Adevărul; Strălucire versus lumină obișnuită.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 10: 23-24; WILLIAMS, C.K. 2016. “Rușine; În metrou; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 11-12: 31-32; LUX, Thomas. 2017. “Noaptea-i atât de înstelată că o veveriță citește; Pentru a ajuta maimuța să treacă râul; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 1: 19-20; PADGETT, Ron. 2017. “Cum să fii perfect.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 2: 29-31; LEVERTOV, Denise. 2017. “Secretul; Cum ar arăta casa mea dacă ar fi o persoană; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 3: 22-23; WALDMAN, Anne. 2017. “Un apel telefonic de la Frank O’Hara; Munciuna.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 4: 48-49; WRIGHT, Franz. 2017. “Singurul animal; O inimă; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 5: 19-20; JONES, Rodney. 2017. “Ploaie pe tinichea; Lectura de poezie; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 6: 28-29; LEVINE, Philip. 2017. “Ce este munca; Visul; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 7: 26-27; NOTLEY, Alice. 2017. “Nu puteam dormi în vis.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 8: 25-26; ASHBERY, John. 2017. “Ei știau ce vroiau; Cealaltă tradiție; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 9: 36-37; FORCHÉ, Carolyn. 2017. “Colonelul; Doliu.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 10: 35-36. SWENSON, May. 2017. “Dormind singură; Dimineață de primăvară; etc.” (Alex Văsieș, Trans.) In Steaua 11-12: 78-79. 324 Poesis International (Various translators) Sexton, Anne. 2010. “Pentru drăgălașii mei; Și una pentru doamna mea.” (Alina Pușcaș, D. Păcuraru, Trans.) In Poesis International 1: 61-66; Baker, David. 2010. “Florile efemere; Foame; Prea multe; etc.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis international 2: 132-138; Berryman, John. 2010. “Din Dream Songs.” (Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Poesis international 2: 62-65. Rothenberg, Jerome. 2010. “Acest joc al așteptării; Puterea morților; etc.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis International 3: 149-151; Mort, Valzhyna. 2011. “Sylt; Sânge din sângele tatei; etc.” (Silvia Grădinaru, Trans.) In Poesis International 4: 40-43; Woodside, Martin. 2011. “California de sud; Pelin; etc.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis International 4: 126-128. Snyder, Gary. 2011. “Ce-ar trebui să știi ca să fii poet; O dimineață de toamnă în Shokoku-ji; etc.” (Raluca and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis International 6: 90-93; Henry, Brian. 2011. “Carantină.” (Radu Vancu, Trans.) In Poesis International 8: 76-78; Wright, Charles. 2012. “Confesiunile unuia care cântă și dansează; Portretul artistului de Li Shang- Yin; etc.” (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis international 9: 31-34; Alexie, Sherman. 2012. “Aș fura cai; Turiști; etc.” (Vlad Pojoga, Trans.) In Poesis International 10: 6-11; Kaminsky, Ilya. 2012. “Trăiam fericiți în vreme de război; A trăi; etc.” (Raluca and Chris Tanasescu, Trans.) In Poesis International 10: 71-75. Rothenberg, Jerome. 2013. “Primul program; Al doilea program; etc.” (Raluca și Chris Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans.) In Poesis International 12: 6-11. Pinsky, Robert. 2013. “Cântecul samuraiului.” (Claudiu Komartin, Trans.) In Poesis International 12: 38-39. Dimitrov, Alex. 2014. “Plecând din oraș cu Allen Ginsberg; Dormim puțin și trăim; etc.” (Florin Buzdugan, Trans.) In Poesis International 13: web. http://bit.ly/2E7KCv4. Accessed: January 25, 2018. Strand, Mark. 2015. “Corpul golit; Moartea ta; etc.” (Radu Nițescu, Trans.) In Poesis International 15: web. http://bit.ly/2Bs5Z7H. Accessed: January 25, 2018. Joudah, Fady. 2015. “Drumul de întoarcere; Sperietoare; etc.” (MARGENTO and Marius Surleac, Trans.) In Poesis International 15: web. http://bit.ly/2E8iJDa. Accessed: January 25, 2018. Campion, Peter. 2015. “Fiică; Villa Sciarra: Azalee; etc.” (Radu Vancu, Trans,) In Poesis International 16: 128-132; Merrill, Christopher. 2016. “Băiatul cu mingea; Poem care începe cu un vers al fiicei mele, Abigail; etc.” (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.) In Poesis International 17: web. http://bit.ly/2Bs8O8N. Accessed: January 25, 2018. Schwartz, Ruth L. 2016. “Cină la miezul nopții; Să te îndrăgostești după patruzeci; etc.” (Anastasia Gavrilovici, Trans.) In Poesis International 18: 223-228; Boyers, Peg. 2016. “Pietà; Rialto; etc.” (Tiberiu Neacșu, Trans.) In Poesis International 18: 183-187; Bidart, Frank. 2017. “Herbert White.” (Tiberiu Neacșu, Trans.) In Poesis International 19: 51-55; Carson, Anne. 2017. “Anne Carson.” (Teodora Coman, Trans.) In Poesis International 20: 31-36. Translations by Victor Olaru (listed chronologically) DUFFY, Carole Ann. 2007. Extaz. (Victor Olaru, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 7 – 8: 29; MERWIN, W.S. 2007. “Loc pustiu.” (Victor Olaru, Trad.) In Scrisul românesc 1 – 2: 25; COLLINS, Billy. 2009. “Profesorul de istorie.” (Victor Olaru, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 2: 29; Olaru, Victor. 2009. “Ted Kooser "poet al poporului american".” (Translated poems: Zburând noaptea; Aniversare; Fără titlu.) http://bit.ly/2E7KCv4 http://bit.ly/2Bs5Z7H http://bit.ly/2E8iJDa http://bit.ly/2Bs8O8N 325 (Victor Olaru, Trans.) In Scrisul românesc 1: 26; HOAGLAND, Tony. 2012. In Ramuri web: http://bit.ly/2Fbq2KO. Last accessed: February 18, 2018; Translations by Olimpia Iacob (listed alphabetically) AN’YA. 2014. “Ploaie cu stele.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; ASH, John. 2013. “Cerul, soțul meu; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare, July 28. Web: http://convorbiri- literare.ro/?p=245 Last accessed: January 27, 2018; BAR-LEV, Helen. 2012. “Frumuseţe; O plimbare de la calm la haos.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 2: 132-133. BAR-LEV, Helen. 2012. “O anume clipă; Vremelnic; Strădania polarităţii; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Poezia 1: 140-142; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2008. “Ianuarie; Iunie; Misiune.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Nord literar 6: 16; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2008. “Din grădina Raiului; Dînd nume păsărilor; Neclintită ca o mătură; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 9: 84-85; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2010. “Septembrie; Octombrie; Noiembrie.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 98; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2011. “Uitând Ierusalimul; Zare de timp; Frunzele lacului... decembrie.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Poezia 4: 123-126; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2015. “Dând nume pruncilor.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.). In Convorbiri literare 11: 146-147; BARKAN, Stanley H. 2016. “Pietre sacre; Americanul statornic; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 19; BOSS, Laura. 2008. “Mătuşa Roza; Cercuri perfecte; Ultima data.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 12: 117-118; BARKAN CLARKE, Mia. 2010. “Acele violete; Privire veninoasă; Vînătorul de vise.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 9: 124- 125; BENNETT, Maria. 2013. “Cum să rabzi durerea copleşitoare; Pentru liniştea trupului.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 11: 130; BENNETT, Maria. 2014. “Rugăciunea mării; Poem la cinzeci de ani; Înfloreşte din nou valea morţii.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 3: 138; BENNETT, Maria. 2014. “Cum să înduri durerea copleșitoare; Pentru liniștea trupului; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 3: 23; BENNETT, Maria. 2013. “Patru metafore pentru trup; Tu și iarna.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 11: 23; BENNET, Maria. 2011. “Fiindcă iubești; Din pricina ta.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 4: 27; BOSS, Laura. 2013. “După Abu Ghraib.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 143; CLEMENTE, Vince. 2008. “Lumina caisului; Viaţă fără viaţă; Cânt Pentru Gina.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Poezia 2: 172-175; CLEMENTE, Vince. 2009. “Cântec nocturn; Alee ninsă în zori.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 143; CLEMENTE, Vince. 2008. “Margaret Fuller către mama ei; Zile cu pâine de secară; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 13: 23; CLEMENTE, Vince. 2008. “Te voi afla; Acasă sâmbătă dimineața.”(Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 7: 23; CLEMENTE, Vince. 2008. “Delfin în lumină din Montauk; Dimineață de duminică la lumina liliacului.”(Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 9-10: 27; COOK, Rebecca. 2010. “Îndopată la refuz cu frică; Numai glasuri; Acest poem despre cicatrici; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 2: 123-124; COWLING, Christina. 2013. “Rugă pentru surorile mele; Lacrimi; Stele; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 3: 23; CREELEY, Robert. 2007. “Cunosc un om; După Lorca; Avertisment; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 6: 100; DALACHINSKY, Steve. 2014. “Păr.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; DIGBY, Joan. 2015. “Cină în Daegu.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 146; DIGBY, John. 2013. “Vreau să plouă; Ieșind din noapte; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 4: 23; DOBRIN, Arthur. 2013. “O imitaţie a cântecelor antice; http://bit.ly/2Fbq2KO http://convorbiri-literare.ro/?p=245 http://convorbiri-literare.ro/?p=245 326 Poetul nu e un tonomat, deci nu-mi spuneţi ce să scriu; Schimbarea vieţii pe pământ.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 143; DOLL, Kristine. 2014. “Prietenii mei; Trupul; Morţii.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 136; DOTSON, John. 2008. “Plaja Carmel.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 144; DOTSON, John. 2015. “Locul sfânt; Aurora consurgens; Apel de trezire; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 3: 23; FERLINGHETTI, Lawrence. 2008. “Făcând dragoste în poezie; Zbor peste Ohio; Nuferii lui Monet cuprinşi de tremor.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 95-96; GERSHATOR, Phillis. 2015. “Obsesie editorial.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 146; GILL, Stephen. 2010. “Eu; Cine să cumpere; Laude; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 1: 122-123; GILL, Stephen. 2013. “Naşterea poemelor; Fărâmituri uscate; Arta însingurată.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 1: 145-146; GILL, Stephen. 2012. “Azi; Cine va cumpăra; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 5: 27; GILL, Stephen. 2012. “Maicii mele; A fi; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 23; GILL, Stephen. 2010. “(Iubire).” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 2: 27; GILLI, Ferris. 2013. “[Poem.]” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 23; GILLI, Ferris. 2014. “[Poem].” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; GRANGE, Janet La. 2015. “Vagă amintire din America.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 19; HARRIS, Paul. 2015. “Observînd albinele.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 146; HARTER, Penny. 2014. “Ploaie de seară.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; HEYEN, William. 2013. “Primăvara mierlelor; Capsulă.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Contemporanul-ideea europeană 12: 31; HEYEN, William. 2016. “Albastru; Ghicitoare: etc.”(Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 2: 19; KACIAN, Jim. 2010. “După-amiază sufocantă; Visare...; Înfrigurat.” (Olimpia Iacob and Marius Chelaru, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 5: 99-100; Kacian, Jim. 2010. “Selected Poems.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 9: 23; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2009. “Poetul; Mîna desfrânată a Ursitei; Din nou tînăr e noroiul; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 10: 125-126; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2010. “Un soare veşnic; Cuprins de dor; Te-am pierdut?” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Contemporanul-ideea europeană, 3: 34; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2010. “Lumina zorilor; Cînd în sufletul meu; Clepsidra timpului.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 6: 123; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2012. “Fără să mă urnesc; Poeme fărîmicioase; În adîncul misterului.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 1: 129; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2012. “Cântecul pescăruşilor; Palidă precum luna; O strălucire mistuitoare; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) Poezia 4: 189-192; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2013. “Închinăciune momentului.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.). In Contemporanul - ideea europeană, 12: 31; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2014. “Moment de graţie; Cu recunoştinţă; Sclavul meu fugar.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 7: 140-141; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2017. “Licoarea înfloririi noastre; Licoarea dragostei noastre; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 9: 19; (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2013. “Iubire născută din liniște; Invidia cerurilor; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 1: 23; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2013. “Cugetări aleatorii.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 6: 23; KLEEFELD, Carolyn Mary. 2010. “Între stânci dure, reci; O amintire ca a soarelui; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 6: 27; KRAPT, Norbert. 2008. “Orgasm.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Nord literar 6: 16; KUROWSKA, Joanna. 2015. “De ce?; Motive; O altă față; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 5: 23; LEVERTOV, Denise. 2009. “Poemul nescris; Ştiind drumul; Viaţa din jurul nostru; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Poezia 1: 113-116; McFARLAND, Elizabeth. 2013. “Un fulg fără cusur.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 23; MAZZIOTTI GILLAN, Maria.2013. “Băieţii îi spun vorbe de ocară nepotului meu; Ce ştiam eu despre dragoste.” (Olimpia 327 Iacob, Trans.) In Contemporanul-ideea europeană 12: 31; MAZZIOTTI GILLAN, Maria. 2008. “Cămășuțe de noapte; Tăticu, îți spuneam noi; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 15: 23; METZ, Robin. 2009. “Cod albastru; O poveste de iarnă; Lumina nopţii; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 1: 127-128; METZ, Robin. “În valea tuturor sufletelor; Înainte; Sănătos.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 12: 114; MOHR, Marylin. “Chai; Toamnă.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Contemporanul-ideea europeană 12: 31; MOORE, Leonard D. 2016. “Selected Haikus.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 11: 18; MOORE, Leonard D. 2017. “Poems.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 1: 18; MORRISON, Madison. “Poems by Madison Morisson. “(Olimpia Iacob and Nicolae Popescu, Trans.) In Poesis 6-8: 112-115; MURRAY, Gloria G. 2008. “Exploatare nabateană.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Nord literar 6: 16; NORRIS, Christopher. 2015. “Despărţire.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 147; OTOMO, Yuko. 2014. “Noapte de vară.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; OWEN, Renée. 2014. “O mie de forme.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; PINSKY, Robert. 2009. “Poem cu versuri în orice ordine; ABC; Cîntul samuraiului.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 6: 119; PLATH, Sylvia. 2008. “Primirea cutiei pentru albine.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Poesis 6-8: 115; RICH, Adrienne. 2009. “Baltimore; Margini; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 3: 23; RICHARDS, Kyung-Nyun Kim. 2015. “Mușuroaie de furnici; Ipocrizie; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 19; RICHARDS, Steffen. 2014. “Mai mult decât paznic al zorilor.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 6: 23; ROSENOW, Ce. 2010. “Cuprinşi de căinţa vorbelor; Urme lăsate; Fixînd cu privirea Pacificul.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 123-124; SADRE-ORFAI, Jenny. 2013. “Înainte de semnarea cererii; Cînd eşti plecat; Soţul dintîi; etc.” In Convorbiri literare 6: 136-137; SAJÉ, Natasha. 2013. “Milk River; Circumflex.” In Convorbiri literare 7: 139-140; Sajé, Natasha. 2013. “Anatemă; Funia; Scuză.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 8: 148-149; SALKILLD, Jean. 2015. “Căutătorii de moluşte.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 4: 147; SIMSER, Guy. 2014. “Fantoma tatălui.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23; SQUIER, Charles. 2011. “Poems.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 7-8: 27; STILLER, Nikki. 2008. “Iarnă.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Nord literar 6: 16; STRAND, Mark. 2007. “Poştaşul; Devorând poezie; Singurul cînt.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 8: 105; VILLANUEVA, Tino. 2017. “Așa vorbea Penelopa; Strălucind ca marea; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 19; VILLANUEVA, Tino. 2016. “La muzeul Holocaustului: Washington D.C.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 18; VILLANUEVA, Tino. 2014. “Lepădarea de absență; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 2: 23; VILLANUEVA, Tino. 2014. “Am descîntat o pagină; Glas peste timp.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 5: 153; WHITMAN, Neil. 2017. “Poem.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 1: 18; WHITMAN, Neal. 2014. “Ger în miez de noapte.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans). In Acolada 6: 23; WILLIAMS, C. K. 2008. “Aşa stau lucrurile cu oamenii; Poemul mamei sinucigaşe; Criticul; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 3: 95-96; WOLAK, Bill. 2011. “Zmei în flăcări.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 12: 122-123; WOLAK, Bill. 2016. “Vântul escaladează mătasea; Teama de calendare; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 4: 19; WOLAK, William. 2013. (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) “Selected Haikus.” In Acolada 12: 23; WOLAK, Bill. 2011.” Începutul dragostei; Irezistibilă; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 12: 27; WYLIE, Elinor. 2007. “Incantaţie; Să nu îngădui speranţei binevoitoare; Piersic sălbatic; etc.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Convorbiri literare 7: 110; YUANG, Changming. 2014. “Lotus; Razele.” (Olimpia Iacob, Trans.) In Acolada 10: 23. 328 Annex 2 – NetworkX Analysis406 of the U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Translation Network in PP (2007-2017) G’s nodes407 are: [('F_Wright', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Craik', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Duhamel', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Swann', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Ras', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Lowell', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Gerstler', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Cohen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_St_Aubin', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('W_Baker', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Hughes', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Manole', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('N_Giovanni', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Grivu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Alina_Sorescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('F_Joudah', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Vacarescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('R_Wilbur', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Dragomir', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Surleac', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Oliver', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Collins', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Ionescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('P_deRachewiltz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Harter', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Dobrin', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Soto', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Digby', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Edson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('DM_Andrei', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_English', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Constantinescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('T_Villanueva', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('F_Gilli', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_LaGrange', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('H_Bar_Lev', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Moore', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Yuang', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('V_Clemente', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('anya', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Gill', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Gershator', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Metz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Cook', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('AR_Ammons', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_McFarland', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Olaru', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('DA_Powell', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Knott', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Riggs', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Hawkins', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Solomon', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('K_Doll', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Codrescu', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('KS_Keyss', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Lewis', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Ash', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Gradinaru', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('T_Roethke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Brudascu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('R_Padgett', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Y_Komunyakaa', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Vincenz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('ee_cummings', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Baker', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('N_Burke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('AV_Rivera', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Jackson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Trandafir', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Muresanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Moscaliuc', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('S_Singer', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Landsman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Bishop', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('K_Richards', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Parau', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Carides', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('V_Mort', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Swenson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Cowling', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Mircea', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_Mohr', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Marin_Sorescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('R_Marx', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Mihalache', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('GE_Clarke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Campion', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Ondaatje', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Suiu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Simion', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Vintila', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('R_Pinsky', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Tischer', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Hillman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Rector', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Rhea', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Murray', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Stern', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Boss', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Moscovici', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Wylie', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Micu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Notley', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('CK_Williams', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Sandu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Ghita', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_Foldes', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Forche', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Nauen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('T_Berrigan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('N_Whitman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Nitescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_Woodside', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Mayer', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Creeley', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Neacsu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Suciu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Boagiu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Hotaranu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('P_Balakian', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Olah', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Foarta', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('C_Antao_Xavier', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Wolak', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Salkilld', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Taylor', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Vancu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Dimitrov', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Amatoritsero', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Filimon', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('T_Kooser', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Angel', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_England', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Bennett', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Gavrilovici', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Coman', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('C_Bakken', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Simic', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Popescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('K_Rexroth', {'capacity': 'author'}), ("F_O'Hara", {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Ofileanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Britt', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Haas', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Ashbery', {'capacity': 'author'}), 406 All values are pesented with only 4 decimals whenever the rest of the decimals are superfluous. 407 The type of notation we used is the one generated by Python. 329 ('Sting', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Patea', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_Morrison', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Heavily', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Ransom', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Myles', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Collective_Unattributed', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('W_Coleman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Mahon', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('N_Krapt', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('RL_Schwartz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Ulmeanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Vasies', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Zank', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('S_Alexie', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Pojoga', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Waldman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Mocuta', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('K_Mattawa', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Wright', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Grigore', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('P_Boyers', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Nicolae', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('E_Equi', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Owen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Richards', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Serban', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Prodan', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('J_Dodds', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Carver', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Milazzo', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Strand', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Jarrell', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Nurkse', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('CD_Wright', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Waters', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Berryman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Mellor', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Rogojina', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('CE_Rosenow', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Sabau', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Cosma', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Ieronim', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Olos', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('S_Plath', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Haines', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Rusu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_ORourke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Simser', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Brown', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('WS_Merwin', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('MAM_Fitzpatrick', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Levertov', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Dochia', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('M_Atwood', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('N_Saje', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Grace', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Hershon', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Hejinian', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Auster', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_BarkanClarke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Rashbaum', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('N_Stiller', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Y_Otomo', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Rich', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Phillips', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('SH_Barkan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Gheorghiu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Cohen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('T_Skurtu', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Z_Vayma', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Komartin', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('GC_Waldrep', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Unattributed', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Popa', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('C_Bukowski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('CM_Kleefeld', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Ignatow', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Baconsky', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('S_Dunn', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Bernstein', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Ciobanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('A_Sze', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Sociu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('B_Ross', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('QV_GexBreaux', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Snyder', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Doinas', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Dragomirescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('D_Brinks', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_Berman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Thompson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Iacob', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('J_Kurowska', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Tartler', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('I_Sadoji', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Ginsberg', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('T_Hoagland', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('F_Bidart', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Gluck', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Racovita', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('CA_Duffy', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Gritsman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('F_Howe', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Oancea', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Motet', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Firan', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('J_Dotson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('D_DiPrima', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Miller', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Carson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Chelaru', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Cassian', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('G_Corso', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('PH_Starzinger', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Bateman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Chris_Tanasescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('R_Dove', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('TS_Eliot', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Waldrop', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Goldbarth', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Killebrew', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Manesiotis', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('MM_Gillan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Gardner', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('John_Digby', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Brautigan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Jones', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('K_Knox', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Moss', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Phil_Levine', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Winder', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Merrill', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Sexton', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Foster', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Buzdugan', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Nicolau', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('J_Rothenberg', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('P_Harris', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Henry', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Samulescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('T_Lux', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('W_Heyen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('I_Kaminsky', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Doty', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Brodsky', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Norris', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Gregerson', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Squier', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Sibisan', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('E_Hirsch', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Tate', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Alexander', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Kacian', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Dalachinski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Diaz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Zanca', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Conkan', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('K_Graber', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Angelou', {'capacity': 'author'})] 330 G's edges408 are: [('F_Wright', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Craik', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Duhamel', 'Komartin', {'journal': 'Cuvantul', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Swann', 'Suiu', {'journal': 'Agora', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Ras', 'Hotaranu', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Lowell', 'Cassian', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Gerstler', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Cohen', 'Motet', {'journal': 'Amurg_sentimental', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Cohen', 'Rusu', {'journal': 'Negru_pe_alb', 'weight': 1}), ('C_St_Aubin', 'Ghita', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('W_Baker', 'Motet', {'journal': 'Amurg_sentimental', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Hughes', 'Baconsky', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Hughes', 'Solomon', {'journal': '13_Plus', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Hughes', 'Motet', {'journal': 'Amurg_sentimental', 'weight': 1}), ('Manole', 'GE_Clarke', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata_&_Viata_romaneasca', 'weight': 2}), ('Manole', 'E_Amatoritsero', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 1}), ('N_Giovanni', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Grivu', 'G_England', {'journal': 'Orasul', 'weight': 1}), ('Grivu', 'L_Gluck', {'journal': 'Orasul', 'weight': 1}), ('Alina_Sorescu', 'K_Graber', {'journal': 'Ramuri', 'weight': 1}), ('F_Joudah', 'Surleac', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_Dilema_veche', 'weight': 0}), ('F_Joudah', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_Dilema_veche', 'weight': 2}), ('Vacarescu', 'S_Plath', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('Vacarescu', 'A_Sexton', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Wilbur', 'Cassian', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Dragomir', 'A_Ginsberg', {'journal': 'Tomis', 'weight': 1}), ('Dragomir', 'A_Sexton', {'journal': 'Tomis', 'weight': 1}), ('Surleac', 'GC_Waldrep', {'journal': 'Timpul', 'weight': 0}), ('Surleac', 'V_Mort', {'journal': 'Timpul', 'weight': 1}), ('Surleac', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_F_Joudah_&_GC_Waldrep_&_S_Lewis', 'weight': 4}), ('Surleac', 'S_Lewis', {'journal': 'Timpul', 'weight': 0}), ('Surleac', 'M_Vincenz', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_Agentia_de_Carte', 'weight': 2}), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Oliver', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Collins', 'Olaru', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Ionescu', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Romania_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('P_deRachewiltz', 'Oancea', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 0}), ('P_deRachewiltz', 'Patea', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 1}), ('P_Harter', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Dobrin', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('G_Soto', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Digby', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('R_Edson', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('DM_Andrei', 'Nicolau', {'journal': 'Arca', 'weight': 1}), ('J_English', 'Samulescu', {'journal': 'Oglinda_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('Constantinescu', 'AV_Rivera', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('Constantinescu', 'E_Winder', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('Constantinescu', 'P_Bateman', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('T_Villanueva', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_[3x]_Acolada', 'weight': 4}), ('F_Gilli', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('J_LaGrange', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('H_Bar_Lev', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_Poezia', 'weight': 2}), ('L_Moore', 'Brudascu', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Moore', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('C_Yuang', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('V_Clemente', 'Grigore', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 'weight': 1}), ('V_Clemente', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Poezia_&_Convorbiri_literare_&_[3x]_Acolada', 'weight': 5}), ('anya', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Gill', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Convorbiri_literare_&_[3x]_Acolada', 'weight': 5}), ('P_Gershator', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Metz', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 2}), ('R_Cook', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('AR_Ammons', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('E_McFarland', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Olaru', 'T_Kooser', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Olaru', 'T_Hoagland', {'journal': 'Ramuri', 'weight': 1}), ('Olaru', 'WS_Merwin', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Olaru', 'CA_Duffy', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('DA_Powell', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Knott', 'Olah', {'journal': 'Tomis', 'weight': 0}), ('B_Knott', 'Popescu', {'journal': 'Tomis', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Riggs', 'Boagiu', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Hawkins', 'Sibisan', {'journal': 'Vatra', 'weight': 1}), ('K_Doll', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Codrescu', 'Firan', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 0}), ('A_Codrescu', 'Carides', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('KS_Keyss', 'Chelaru', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Lewis', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Timpul', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Ash', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Gradinaru', 'V_Mort', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('T_Roethke', 'Tartler', {'journal': 'Luceafarul', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'Y_Komunyakaa', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'R_Dove', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'QV_GexBreaux', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'A_Jackson', 408 The edges are the publication venues (periodicals) and the weights represent the number of times a poet was published in the respective periodical by a certain translator. 331 {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'E_Miller', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'J_Thompson', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('Brudascu', 'W_Coleman', {'journal': 'Cetatea_culturala', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Padgett', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('ee_cummings', 'Baconsky', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Baker', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_Convorbiri_literare_&_Viata_romaneasca', 'weight': 3}), ('N_Burke', 'Olos', {'journal': 'Nord_literar', 'weight': 1}), ('Trandafir', 'B_Rashbaum', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('Muresanu', 'M_Atwood', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 'weight': 1}), ('Moscaliuc', 'G_Stern', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('Moscaliuc', 'M_Waters', {'journal': 'Poezia_&_Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 2}), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', 'A_Sexton', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Singer', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('P_Landsman', 'Popa', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Bishop', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('K_Richards', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Parau', 'A_Goldbarth', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Parau', 'T_Skurtu', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Parau', 'A_Britt', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Carides', 'R_Milazzo', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Carides', 'Firan', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_A_Codrescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Carides', 'R_Hershon', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Swenson', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Cowling', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Mircea', 'MAM_Fitzpatrick', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Mohr', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 1}), ('Marin_Sorescu', 'Serban', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_WS_Merwin', 'weight': 1}), ('Marin_Sorescu', 'WS_Merwin', {'journal': '13_Plus', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Marx', 'Rusu', {'journal': 'Negru_pe_alb', 'weight': 1}), ('Mihalache', 'J_Mellor', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('GE_Clarke', 'Olos', {'journal': 'Nord_literar_&_Poesis', 'weight': 2}), ('P_Campion', 'Vancu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Ondaatje', 'Zanca', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Ondaatje', 'Grigore', {'journal': 'Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 1}), ('Suiu', 'L_Gregerson', {'journal': 'Agora', 'weight': 1}), ('Suiu', 'T_Hoagland', {'journal': 'Tomis', 'weight': 1}), ('Simion', 'R_Dove', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('Simion', 'S_Plath', {'journal': 'Vatra', 'weight': 1}), ('Simion', 'J_Berryman', {'journal': 'Vatra_&_Euphorion', 'weight': 2}), ('Vintila', 'R_Dove', {'journal': 'Bucovina_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Pinsky', 'Komartin', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Pinsky', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Tischer', 'Samulescu', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Tischer', 'Dragomirescu', {'journal': '[2x]_Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 2}), ('B_Hillman', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Rector', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Rhea', 'Rusu', {'journal': 'Negru_pe_alb', 'weight': 1}), ('G_Murray', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Nord_literar', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Boss', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 2}), ('C_Moscovici', 'Ulmeanu', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Wylie', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Micu', 'T_Skurtu', {'journal': 'Caiete_silvane', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Notley', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Notley', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('CK_Williams', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('CK_Williams', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Sandu', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Idei_in_dialog', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Foldes', 'Collective_Unattributed', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Foldes', 'Filimon', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Forche', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Nauen', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('T_Berrigan', 'Grigore', {'journal': 'Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 1}), ('N_Whitman', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('Nitescu', 'M_Strand', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Woodside', 'Ieronim', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Woodside', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_Convorbiri_literare_&_InterReACT', 'weight': 3}), ('B_Mayer', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Creeley', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Neacsu', 'P_Boyers', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Neacsu', 'F_Bidart', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Suciu', 'Conkan', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_A_Sexton', 'weight': 1}), ('Suciu', 'A_Sexton', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Hotaranu', 'R_Milazzo', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Hotaranu', 'E_Hirsch', {'journal': '[3x}_Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 3}), ('Hotaranu', 'A_Gritsman', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Hotaranu', 'J_Manesiotis', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Hotaranu', 'D_Brinks', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Hotaranu', 'R_Angel', {'journal': '[2x]_Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 2}), ('P_Balakian', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Olah', 'Popescu', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_B_Knott', 'weight': 1}), ('Foarta', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Acolada_&_Romania_literara', 'weight': 2}), ('Foarta', 'R_Jarrell', {'journal': 'Cafeneaua_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('Foarta', 'Racovita', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_TS_Eliot', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 'Ieronim', {'journal': 'Luceafarul', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Wolak', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_[4x]_Acolada', 'weight': 5}), ('J_Salkilld', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Taylor', 'Raluca_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Taylor', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 332 'weight': 0}), ('Vancu', 'B_Henry', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Vancu', 'T_Skurtu', {'journal': 'Mozaicul_&_Subacapitol_&_Zona_noua', 'weight': 3}), ('Vancu', 'J_Berryman', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Dimitrov', 'Buzdugan', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Amatoritsero', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('T_Kooser', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Bennett', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Convorbiri_literare_&_[3x]_Acolada', 'weight': 5}), ('Gavrilovici', 'RL_Schwartz', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Coman', 'A_Carson', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Bakken', 'Ieronim', {'journal': 'Luceafarul', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Simic', 'Cassian', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Simic', 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Simic', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('K_Rexroth', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ("F_O'Hara", 'Ofileanu', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'M_Doty', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'J_Brown', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'I_Sadoji', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'M_Angelou', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'A_Sze', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'A_Ginsberg', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'S_Dunn', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'E_Alexander', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'R_Brautigan', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'K_Mattawa', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'C_Bukowski', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('Ofileanu', 'G_Corso', {'journal': 'Fereastra', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Haas', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Cassian', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Viata_romaneasca', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Vasies', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Sting', 'Rusu', {'journal': 'Negru_pe_alb', 'weight': 1}), ('Patea', 'Oancea', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_P_deRachewitz', 'weight': 1}), ('Patea', 'Stancu', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_D_Moody', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Morrison', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Poesis', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Heavily', 'Cosma', {'journal': 'Vatra_veche', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Ransom', 'Collective_Unattributed', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Myles', 'Rogojina', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Mahon', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('N_Krapt', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Nord_literar', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'CD_Wright', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'A_Waldman', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'Phil_Levine', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'D_Nurkse', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'T_Lux', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'D_Levertov', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'C_Phillips', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'M_Angelou', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'R_Carver', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Vasies', 'R_Jones', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Zank', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Romania_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Alexie', 'Pojoga', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Mocuta', 'R_Brautigan', {'journal': '[2x]_Arca_&_Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 3}), ('C_Wright', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_InterReACT', 'weight': 2}), ('Grigore', 'M_Atwood', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('Grigore', 'P_Auster', {'journal': 'Euphorion', 'weight': 1}), ('Grigore', 'E_Equi', {'journal': 'Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 1}), ('Nicolae', 'J_Brodsky', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Owen', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Richards', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Serban', 'WS_Merwin', {'journal': '13_Plus', 'weight': 0}), ('Prodan', 'A_Grace', {'journal': 'Oglinda_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Strand', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('R_Jarrell', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Mellor', 'Samulescu', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('Rogojina', 'K_Knox', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Rogojina', 'R_Waldrop', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Rogojina', 'L_Hejinian', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Rogojina', 'F_Howe', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Rogojina', 'D_DiPrima', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('CE_Rosenow', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Sabau', 'L_Diaz', {'journal': 'Orizont_literar_contemporan', 'weight': 1}), ('Ieronim', 'C_Merrill', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Ieronim', 'A_Gritsman', {'journal': 'Luceafarul_de_dimineata', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Plath', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Poesis', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Haines', 'Gardner', {'journal': 'Provincia_Corvina', 'weight': 1}), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 'J_Rothenberg', {'journal': 'Poesis_International_&_[2x]_Poezia', 'weight': 3}), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 'G_Snyder', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 'I_Kaminsky', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 1}), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'collaboration': 'Cotranslation_of_J_Rothenberg_&_G_Snyder_&_J_Taylor_&_I_Kaminsky', 'weight': 6}), ('M_ORourke', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('G_Simser', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('WS_Merwin', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Levertov', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('Dochia', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Cafeneaua_literara', 'weight': 1}), ('N_Saje', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[2x]_Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 2}), ('M_BarkanClarke', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('N_Stiller', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Nord_literar', 'weight': 1}), ('Y_Otomo', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Rich', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('SH_Barkan', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Nord_literar_&_[3x]_Convorbiri_literare_&_Poezia_&_Acolada', 'weight': 6}), ('Gheorghiu', 'G_Corso', {'journal': 333 'Arges', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Cohen', 'Buzdugan', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 1}), ('Z_Vayma', 'Chelaru', {'journal': 'Poesis', 'weight': 1}), ('GC_Waldrep', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Timpul', 'weight': 1}), ('Unattributed', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Arges', 'weight': 2}), ('CM_Kleefeld', 'Iacob', {'journal': '[6x]_Convorbiri_literare_&_[4x]_Acolada_&_[2x]_Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana_&_Poezia', 'weight': 13}), ('D_Ignatow', 'Iacob', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('C_Bernstein', 'Sociu', {'journal': 'Cuvantul', 'weight': 1}), ('Ciobanu', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Ateneu', 'weight': 1}), ('Sociu', 'J_Tate', {'journal': 'Cuvantul', 'weight': 1}), ('Sociu', 'P_Killebrew', {'journal': 'Cuvantul', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Ross', 'Motet', {'journal': 'Amurg_sentimental', 'weight': 1}), ('G_Snyder', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 0}), ('Doinas', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': '13_Plus', 'weight': 1}), ('D_Berman', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'J_Kurowska', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'A_Ginsberg', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'MM_Gillan', {'journal': 'Acolada_&_Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 2}), ('Iacob', 'John_Digby', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'C_Squier', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'J_Dotson', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('Iacob', 'J_Kacian', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare_&_Acolada', 'weight': 2}), ('Iacob', 'S_Dalachinski', {'journal': 'Acolada', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'C_Norris', {'journal': 'Convorbiri_literare', 'weight': 1}), ('Iacob', 'W_Heyen', {'journal': 'Acolada_&_Contemporanul_Ideea_europeana', 'weight': 2}), ('Tartler', 'L_Gluck', {'journal': 'Luceafarul', 'weight': 1}), ('Racovita', 'TS_Eliot', {'journal': 'Romania_literara', 'weight': 0}), ('Firan', 'S_Moss', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Firan', 'E_Foster', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('Cassian', 'S_Moss', {'journal': 'Scrisul_romanesc', 'weight': 1}), ('PH_Starzinger', 'Chris_Tanasescu', {'journal': 'Familia', 'weight': 1}), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 'I_Kaminsky', {'journal': 'Poesis_International', 'weight': 0}), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 'J_Rothenberg', {'journal': '[2x]_Poesis_International_&_[2x]_Poezia', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Sexton', 'Conkan', {'journal': 'Steaua', 'weight': 0})] SIZE Number of components, nodes, and edges G components = 30 G nodes = 310 G edges = 302 G0 nodes = 222 (71.61%) G0 edges = 241 (79.80%) G1 nodes = 12 (3.87%) G1 edges = 11 (3.64%) G2 nodes = 12 (3.87%) G2 edges = 5 (1.65%) G3-29 nodes = 64 (20.65%) G3-29 edges = 45 (14.91%) DENSITY The portion of the potential connections in a network that are actual connections def density(G): x = len(G.edges) y = len(G.nodes) return 2*x / (y*(y-1)) G’s density is 0.0063 G0’s density is 0.0098 G1’s density is 0.1666 G2’s density is 0.3333 AVERAGE DEGREE The average number of edges connected to a node The degrees for all nodes in G are: DegreeView({'Oancea': 2, 'N_Krapt': 1, 'Komartin': 2, 'D_Duhamel': 1, 'B_Swann': 1, 'B_Ras': 1, 'T_Kooser': 2, 'P_deRachewiltz': 2, 'C_St_Aubin': 1, 'L_Hughes': 3, 'Manole': 2, 'R_Haas': 1, 'Grivu': 2, 'Alina_Sorescu': 1, 'F_Joudah': 2, 'Vacarescu': 2, 'Dragomir': 2, 'Surleac': 6, 'J_Sadre_Orfai': 1, 'B_Collins': 1, 'R_Lowell': 1, 'P_Harter': 1, 'A_Dobrin': 1, 'Firan': 4, 'G_Soto': 1, 'J_Digby': 1, 'S_Lewis': 2, 'J_English': 1, 'Constantinescu': 3, 'T_Villanueva': 1, 'F_Gilli': 1, 'L_Ferlinghetti': 2, 'J_LaGrange': 1, 'L_Moore': 2, 'C_Yuang': 1, 'V_Clemente': 2, 'anya': 1, 'S_Gill': 1, 'P_Gershator': 1, 'R_Cook': 1, 'Nitescu': 1, 'E_McFarland': 1, 'Pojoga': 1, 'DA_Powell': 1, 'Popa': 1, 'WS_Merwin': 4, 'J_Hawkins': 1, 'Solomon': 1, 'K_Doll': 1, 'A_Codrescu': 2, 'KS_Keyss': 1, 'B_Henry': 1, 'Ulmeanu': 1, 'R_Brautigan': 2, 'Gradinaru': 1, 'S_Moss': 2, 'Brudascu': 8, 'Y_Komunyakaa': 1, 'ee_cummings': 1, 'D_Baker': 1, 'D_Ignatow': 1, 'Grigore': 6, 'R_Wilbur': 1, 'M_Strand': 2, 'Muresanu': 1, 'Moscaliuc': 2, 'Puscas_Pacuraru': 1, 'S_Dunn': 1, 'A_Gritsman': 2, 'S_Singer': 1, 'John_Digby': 1, 'P_Landsman': 1, 'E_Bishop': 1, 'K_Richards': 1, 'Parau': 3, 'Carides': 4, 'V_Mort': 2, 'Ciobanu': 2, 'C_Cowling': 1, 'Mircea': 1, 'M_Mohr': 1, 'Marin_Sorescu': 2, 'Coman': 1, 'R_Marx': 1, 334 'Mihalache': 1, 'GE_Clarke': 2, 'Sting': 1, 'A_Jackson': 1, 'Suiu': 3, 'Simion': 3, 'Vintila': 1, 'R_Pinsky': 2, 'J_Tischer': 2, 'E_Miller': 1, 'B_Hillman': 1, 'L_Rector': 1, 'Boagiu': 1, 'C_Rhea': 1, 'G_Murray': 1, 'Serban': 2, 'Hotaranu': 7, 'D_Nurkse': 1, 'E_Equi': 1, 'Micu': 1, 'A_Notley': 2, 'CK_Williams': 2, 'L_Cohen': 2, 'Ghita': 1, 'Baconsky': 2, 'E_Nauen': 1, 'N_Whitman': 1, 'AR_Ammons': 1, 'M_Woodside': 2, 'B_Mayer': 1, 'R_Creeley': 1, 'J_Haines': 1, 'DM_Andrei': 1, 'Suciu': 2, 'Neacsu': 2, 'L_Boss': 1, 'Olah': 2, 'Foarta': 3, 'C_Antao_Xavier': 1, 'B_Wolak': 1, 'J_Salkilld': 1, 'D_Brinks': 1, 'Vancu': 4, 'A_Dimitrov': 1, 'E_Amatoritsero': 2, 'Filimon': 1, 'Sibisan': 1, 'R_Angel': 1, 'G_England': 1, 'M_Bennett': 1, 'F_Wright': 1, 'Ionescu': 1, 'J_Brown': 1, 'M_Doty': 1, 'J_Thompson': 1, 'C_Simic': 3, 'Popescu': 2, 'K_Rexroth': 1, 'L_Gluck': 2, 'Ofileanu': 20, 'W_Baker': 1, 'Conkan': 2, 'Patea': 3, 'M_Morrison': 1, 'J_Heavily': 1, 'Nicolau': 1, 'J_Ransom': 1, 'E_Myles': 1, 'Collective_Unattributed': 2, 'W_Coleman': 1, 'D_Mahon': 1, 'R_Craik': 1, 'J_Kurowska': 1, 'A_Gerstler': 1, 'Vasies': 21, 'Zank': 1, 'CE_Rosenow': 1, 'Zanca': 1, 'Olaru': 5, 'A_Waldman': 1, 'Mocuta': 1, 'K_Mattawa': 1, "F_O'Hara": 1, 'AV_Rivera': 1, 'Iacob': 68, 'P_Boyers': 1, 'J_Ashbery': 3, 'K_Graber': 1, 'C_Forche': 1, 'I_Sadoji': 1, 'G_Stern': 1, 'Prodan': 1, 'M_Foldes': 2, 'A_Ginsberg': 3, 'R_Milazzo': 2, 'R_Jarrell': 2, 'CD_Wright': 1, 'M_Waters': 1, 'J_Berryman': 2, 'J_Mellor': 2, 'Rogojina': 11, 'S_Alexie': 1, 'Sabau': 1, 'Cosma': 1, 'Ieronim': 5, 'Olos': 2, 'S_Plath': 3, 'Gavrilovici': 1, 'Raluca_Tanasescu': 5, 'H_Bar_Lev': 1, 'R_Padgett': 1, 'QV_GexBreaux': 1, 'Rusu': 4, 'MAM_Fitzpatrick': 1, 'M_Oliver': 1, 'Dochia': 1, 'M_Atwood': 2, 'N_Saje': 1, 'A_Grace': 1, 'R_Hershon': 1, 'L_Hejinian': 1, 'D_Levertov': 2, 'C_Norris': 1, 'B_Rashbaum': 1, 'N_Stiller': 1, 'Y_Otomo': 1, 'A_Rich': 1, 'C_Phillips': 1, 'SH_Barkan': 1, 'Gheorghiu': 1, 'A_Cohen': 1, 'T_Skurtu': 3, 'R_Metz': 1, 'GC_Waldrep': 2, 'Unattributed': 1, 'B_Knott': 2, 'C_Bukowski': 1, 'Sandu': 1, 'N_Burke': 1, 'Trandafir': 1, 'R_Carver': 1, 'C_Bernstein': 1, 'M_Swenson': 1, 'A_Sze': 1, 'Z_Vayma': 1, 'E_Wylie': 1, 'M_Vincenz': 1, 'T_Berrigan': 1, 'Doinas': 1, 'Dragomirescu': 1, 'J_Taylor': 2, 'D_Berman': 1, 'G_Simser': 1, 'R_Edson': 1, 'RL_Schwartz': 1, 'Tartler': 2, 'R_Owen': 1, 'J_Ash': 1, 'M_ORourke': 1, 'Racovita': 2, 'CA_Duffy': 1, 'M_BarkanClarke': 1, 'F_Howe': 1, 'CM_Kleefeld': 1, 'Motet': 4, 'G_Snyder': 2, 'A_Britt': 1, 'D_DiPrima': 1, 'P_Campion': 1, 'A_Sexton': 5, 'D_Riggs': 1, 'Chelaru': 2, 'A_Carson': 1, 'E_Foster': 1, 'T_Hoagland': 2, 'PH_Starzinger': 1, 'P_Bateman': 1, 'E_Hirsch': 1, 'Chris_Tanasescu': 19, 'TS_Eliot': 9, 'R_Waldrop': 1, 'P_Killebrew': 1, 'J_Manesiotis': 1, 'MM_Gillan': 1, 'N_Giovanni': 1, 'Cassian': 5, 'Phil_Levine': 1, 'Stancu': 1, 'Nicolae': 1, 'Gardner': 1, 'R_Jones': 1, 'K_Knox': 1, 'S_Dalachinski': 1, 'T_Roethke': 1, 'G_Corso': 2, 'L_Diaz': 1, 'E_Winder': 1, 'C_Merrill': 1, 'C_Moscovici': 1, 'F_Bidart': 1, 'Buzdugan': 2, 'C_Bakken': 1, 'J_Rothenberg': 2, 'P_Harris': 1, 'J_Dodds': 1, 'Samulescu': 3, 'T_Lux': 1, 'W_Heyen': 1, 'I_Kaminsky': 2, 'M_Ondaatje': 2, 'J_Brodsky': 1, 'R_Dove': 3, 'L_Gregerson': 1, 'C_Squier': 1, 'P_Auster': 1, 'B_Ross': 1, 'S_Richards': 1, 'J_Tate': 1, 'E_Alexander': 1, 'J_Kacian': 1, 'Sociu': 3, 'A_Goldbarth': 1, 'J_Dotson': 1, 'C_Wright': 1, 'P_Balakian': 1, 'M_Angelou': 2}) Average degree (average number of links per node) G = 1.9483 G0 = 2.1711 G1 = 1.8(3) G2 = 1.6666 Weighted average degree (mean sum of the weights assigned to the nodes’ links) G = 2.3032 G0 = 2.7747 G1 = 1.8333 G2 = 2.0 CLUSTERING COEFFICIENT The degree to which nodes in a graph tend to cluster together G’s average clustering: 0.0643 G1 = 0.0 G0's average clustering: 0.06577 G2 = 0.0 Clustering for G: OrderedDict([('Oancea', 1.0), ('P_deRachewiltz', 1.0), ('F_Joudah', 1.0), ('S_Lewis', 1.0), ('A_Codrescu', 1.0), ('Marin_Sorescu', 1.0), ('Serban', 1.0), ('Suciu', 1.0), ('Olah', 1.0), ('Popescu', 1.0), ('Conkan', 1.0), ('GC_Waldrep', 1.0), ('B_Knott', 1.0), ('J_Taylor', 1.0), ('Racovita', 1.0), ('G_Snyder', 1.0), ('J_Rothenberg', 1.0), ('I_Kaminsky', 1.0), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.4), ('Foarta', 0.(3)), ('Patea', 0.(3)), ('Surleac', 0.2), ('Firan', 0.1(6)), ('WS_Merwin', 0.1(6)), ('Carides', 0.1(6)), ('A_Sexton', 0.1), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.04), ('TS_Eliot', 0.027), all other nodes = 0. 335 CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.3878), ('Vasies', 0.1816), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1177), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.1160), ('C_Simic', 0.0926), ('Cassian', 0.0856), ('Ofileanu', 0.0852), ('CK_Williams', 0.0583), ('D_Levertov', 0.0583), ('S_Plath', 0.0577), ('A_Notley', 0.0485), ('R_Jarrell', 0.0485), ('Rogojina', 0.0452), ('Simion', 0.0448), ('Foarta', 0.0443), ('S_Moss', 0.0431), ('Firan', 0.0393), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0363), ('V_Clemente', 0.0358), ('J_Berryman', 0.0358), ('L_Moore', 0.0334), ('Grigore', 0.0318), ('Vancu', 0.0317), ('Brudascu', 0.0316), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0307), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0302), ('M_Woodside', 0.0295), ('Olaru', 0.0292), ('Carides', 0.0272), ('Ieronim', 0.0264), ('Hotaranu', 0.0240), ('M_Angelou', 0.0199), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0192), ('T_Skurtu', 0.0183), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.0182), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0162), ('A_Sexton', 0.0140), ('Surleac', 0.0138), ('Manole', 0.0137), ('T_Hoagland', 0.0137), ('T_Kooser', 0.0118), ('Dragomir', 0.0102), ('A_Gritsman', 0.0093), ('Parau', 0.0092), ('Suiu', 0.00922), ('GE_Clarke', 0.0092), ('R_Pinsky', 0.0092), ('Vacarescu', 0.0081), ('R_Dove', 0.0065), ('Komartin', 0.0046), ('R_Brautigan', 0.0046), ('M_Strand', 0.0046), ('V_Mort', 0.0046), ('Ciobanu', 0.0046), ('Olos', 0.0046), ('M_Atwood', 0.0046), ('G_Corso', 0.0046), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.0046), ('Motet', 0.0008), ('L_Cohen', 0.00058), ('Rusu', 0.00056), ('L_Hughes', 0.00054), ('Baconsky', 0.00021), ('Samulescu', 0.0001), ('J_Tischer', 8.4005409), ('L_Gluck', 8.4058e-05), ('J_Mellor', 8.4058e-05), ('Grivu', 6.3043e-05), ('Constantinescu', 6.3043e-05), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 6.3043e-05), ('Tartler', 6.3043e-05), ('Sociu', 6.3043e-05), ('Patea', 4.2029e-05), ('Collective_Unattributed', 4.2029e-05), ('M_Foldes', 4.20291e-05), ('Moscaliuc', 2.1014e-05), ('Neacsu', 2.1014e-05), ('Chelaru', 2.10145e-05), ('Buzdugan', 2.10145e-05), all other nodes=0 Closeness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.2300), ('C_Simic', 0.2029), ('CK_Williams', 0.2013), ('D_Levertov', 0.2013), ('Vasies', 0.1963), ('Cassian', 0.1848), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.1844), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.1823), ('S_Plath', 0.1810), ('R_Jarrell', 0.1786), ('WS_Merwin', 0.1781), ('L_Moore', 0.1777), ('Ofileanu', 0.1777), ('V_Clemente', 0.1773), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.1758), ('R_Pinsky', 0.1750), ('M_Strand', 0.1746), ('N_Krapt', 0.1742), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', 0.1742), ('P_Harter', 0.1742), ('A_Dobrin', 0.1742), ('J_Digby', 0.1742), ('T_Villanueva', 0.1742), ('F_Gilli', 0.1742), ('J_LaGrange', 0.1742), ('C_Yuang', 0.1742), ('anya', 0.0.1742), ('S_Gill', 0.0.1742), ('P_Gershator', 0.0.1742), ('R_Cook', 0.0.1742), ('E_McFarland', 0.0.1742), ('K_Doll', 0.0.1742), ('D_Ignatow', 0.0.1742), ('John_Digby', 0.0.1742), ('K_Richards', 0.0.1742), ('C_Cowling', 0.0.1742), ('M_Mohr', 0.0.1742), ('G_Murray', 0.0.1742), ('N_Whitman', 0.0.1742), ('AR_Ammons', 0.0.1742), ('R_Creeley', 0.0.1742), ('L_Boss', 0.0.1742), ('B_Wolak', 0.0.1742), ('J_Salkilld', 0.0.1742), ('M_Bennett', 0.0.1742), ('K_Rexroth', 0.0.1742), ('M_Morrison', 0.0.1742), ('D_Mahon', 0.0.1742), ('J_Kurowska', 0.0.1742), ('CE_Rosenow', 0.0.1742), ('H_Bar_Lev', 0.0.1742), ('N_Saje', 0.0.1742), ('C_Norris', 0.0.1742), ('N_Stiller', 0.0.1742), ('Y_Otomo', 0.0.1742), ('A_Rich', 0.0.1742), ('SH_Barkan', 0.0.1742), ('R_Metz', 0.0.1742), ('E_Wylie', 0.0.1742), ('G_Simser', 0.0.1742), ('R_Owen', 0.0.1742), ('J_Ash', 0.0.1742), ('M_BarkanClarke', 0.0.1742), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.0.1742), ('MM_Gillan', 0.0.1742), ('S_Dalachinski', 0.0.1742), ('P_Harris', 0.0.1742), ('W_Heyen', 0.0.1742), ('C_Squier', 0.0.1742), ('S_Richards', 0.0.1742), ('J_Kacian', 0.0.1742), ('J_Dotson', 0.0.1742), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1686), ('M_Angelou', 0.1627), ('Olaru', 0.1624), ('A_Notley', 0.1575), ('T_Kooser', 0.1572), ('R_Haas', 0.1542), ('L_Rector', 0.1542), ('D_Nurkse', 0.0.1542), ('F_Wright', 0.0.1542), ('A_Waldman', 0.0.1542), ('C_Forche', 0.0.1542), ('CD_Wright', 0.0.1542), ('R_Padgett', 0.0.1542), ('C_Phillips', 0.0.1542), ('R_Carver', 0.0.1542), ('M_Swenson', 0.0.1542), ('Phil_Levine', 0.0.1542), ('R_Jones', 0.0.1542), ('T_Lux', 0.0.1542), ('P_Balakian', 0.0.1542), ('S_Moss', 0.1505), ('Simion', 0.1495), ('Dragomir', 0.1481), ('Brudascu', 0.1473), ('R_Lowell', 0.1470), ('R_Wilbur', 0.1470), ('Vacarescu', 0.1459), ('Foarta', 0.1456), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.1447), ('Grigore', 0.1440), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.1429), ('Serban', 0.1429), ('R_Brautigan', 0.1427), ('G_Corso', 0.1427), ('G_Soto', 0.1425), ('S_Dunn', 0.1425), ('E_Bishop', 0.1425), ('J_Brown', 0.1425), ('M_Doty', 0.1425), ('K_Mattawa', 0.1425), ("F_O'Hara", 0.1425), ('I_Sadoji', 0.1425), ('M_Oliver', 0.1425), ('C_Bukowski', 0.1425), ('A_Sze', 0.1425), ('R_Edson', 0.1425), ('N_Giovanni', 0.1425), ('E_Alexander', 0.1425), ('Manole', 0.1420), ('Komartin', 0.1410), ('Nitescu', 0.1404), ('T_Hoagland', 0.1331), ('B_Collins', 0.1324), ('CA_Duffy', 0.1324), ('Rogojina', 0.1313), ('Firan', 0.1272), ('A_Sexton', 0.1261), ('R_Dove', 0.1255), ('J_Berryman', 0.1253), ('M_Woodside', 0.1229), ('TS_Eliot', 0.1227), ('Y_Komunyakaa', 0.1222), ('A_Jackson', 0.1222), ('E_Miller', 0.1222), ('J_Thompson', 0.1222), ('W_Coleman', 0.1222), ('QV_GexBreaux', 0.1222), ('Racovita', 0.1219), ('Surleac', 0.1213), ('F_Joudah', 0.1208), ('S_Lewis', 0.1208), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.1208), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.1208), ('J_Taylor', 0.1205), 409 Any such values represent exponenential notations for values that tend to absolute 0. 336 ('G_Snyder', 0.1205), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.1205), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.1205), ('DA_Powell', 0.1204), ('D_Baker', 0.1204), ('S_Singer', 0.1204), ('R_Craik', 0.1204), ('D_Berman', 0.1204), ('M_ORourke', 0.1204), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.1204), ('C_Wright', 0.1204), ('M_Atwood', 0.12019), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.12019), ('E_Equi', 0.1200), ('T_Berrigan', 0.1200), ('P_Auster', 0.1200), ('Mocuta', 0.1191), ('Gheorghiu', 0.1191), ('GE_Clarke', 0.1189), ('D_Duhamel', 0.1178), ('Suiu', 0.1126), ('B_Hillman', 0.1110), ('E_Nauen', 0.1110), ('B_Mayer', 0.1110), ('E_Myles', 0.1110), ('A_Gerstler', 0.1110), ('L_Hejinian', 0.1110), ('F_Howe', 0.1110), ('D_DiPrima', 0.1110), ('R_Waldrop', 0.1110), ('K_Knox', 0.1110), ('Carides', 0.1102), ('A_Codrescu', 0.1091), ('E_Foster', 0.1081), ('Vancu', 0.1077), ('Suciu', 0.1073), ('Conkan', 0.1073), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', 0.1073), ('Ieronim', 0.1070), ('Vintila', 0.1068), ('Ciobanu', 0.1049), ('Ionescu', 0.1048), ('Zank', 0.1048), ('Dochia', 0.1048), ('Unattributed', 0.1048), ('Sandu', 0.1048), ('Doinas', 0.1048), ('V_Mort', 0.1039), ('M_Vincenz', 0.1037), ('Muresanu', 0.1029), ('Zanca', 0.1029), ('Olos', 0.1021), ('R_Milazzo', 0.098), ('B_Swann', 0.0973), ('L_Gregerson', 0.0973), ('R_Hershon', 0.0955), ('A_Gritsman', 0.0945), ('T_Skurtu', 0.0941), ('B_Henry', 0.0936), ('P_Campion', 0.0936), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.0931), ('C_Merrill', 0.0931), ('C_Bakken', 0.0931), ('Hotaranu', 0.0916), ('J_Dodds', 0.0915), ('Gradinaru', 0.0907), ('N_Burke', 0.0894), ('Parau', 0.0834), ('Micu', 0.0832), ('B_Ras', 0.0812), ('D_Brinks', 0.0812), ('R_Angel', 0.0812), ('E_Hirsch', 0.0812), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.0812), ('A_Britt', 0.0747), ('A_Goldbarth', 0.0747), ('Motet', 0.0177), ('L_Cohen', 0.0163), ('L_Hughes', 0.0150), ('Rusu', 0.0139), ('W_Baker', 0.0122), ('B_Ross', 0.0122), ('Samulescu', 0.0115), ('Baconsky', 0.0115), ('Solomon', 0.0108), ('R_Marx', 0.0103), ('Sting', 0.0103), ('C_Rhea', 0.0103), ('Constantinescu', 0.0097), ('Patea', 0.0097), ('Sociu', 0.0097), ('J_Tischer', 0.0089), ('J_Mellor', 0.0089), ('ee_cummings', 0.0088), ('L_Gluck', 0.0086), ('Grivu', 0.0073), ('Tartler', 0.0073), ('J_English', 0.0073), ('Oancea', 0.0072), ('P_deRachewiltz', 0.0072), ('Collective_Unattributed', 0.00728), ('M_Foldes', 0.00728), ('Moscaliuc', 0.0064), ('Neacsu', 0.0064), ('Olah', 0.0064), ('Popescu', 0.0064), ('B_Knott', 0.0064), ('Chelaru', 0.0064), ('Buzdugan', 0.0064), ('Mihalache', 0.0062), ('Dragomirescu', 0.0062), ('AV_Rivera', 0.0058), ('C_Bernstein', 0.0058), ('P_Bateman', 0.0058), ('P_Killebrew', 0.0058), ('Stancu', 0.0058), ('E_Winder', 0.0058), ('J_Tate', 0.0058), ('G_England', 0.0051), ('T_Roethke', 0.0051), ('Filimon', 0.0048), ('J_Ransom', 0.0048), ('KS_Keyss', 0.0043), ('A_Dimitrov', 0.0043), ('P_Boyers', 0.0043), ('G_Stern', 0.0043), ('M_Waters', 0.0043), ('A_Cohen', 0.0043), ('Z_Vayma', 0.0043), ('F_Bidart', 0.0043), ('C_St_Aubin', 0.0032), ('Alina_Sorescu', 0.0032), ('Pojoga', 0.0032), ('Popa', 0.0032), ('J_Hawkins', 0.0032), ('Ulmeanu', 0.0032), ('P_Landsman', 0.0032), ('Mircea', 0.0032), ('Coman', 0.0032), ('Boagiu', 0.0032), ('Ghita', 0.0032), ('J_Haines', 0.0032), ('DM_Andrei', 0.0032), ('Sibisan', 0.0032), ('J_Heavily', 0.0032), ('Nicolau', 0.0032), ('K_Graber', 0.0032), ('Prodan', 0.0032), ('S_Alexie', 0.0032), ('Sabau', 0.0032), ('Cosma', 0.0032), ('Gavrilovici', 0.0032), ('MAM_Fitzpatrick', 0.0032), ('A_Grace', 0.0032), ('B_Rashbaum', 0.0032), ('Trandafir', 0.0032), ('RL_Schwartz', 0.0032), ('D_Riggs', 0.0032), ('A_Carson', 0.0032), ('Nicolae', 0.0032), ('Gardner', 0.0032), ('L_Diaz', 0.0032), ('C_Moscovici', 0.0032), ('J_Brodsky', 0.0032)]) Eigenvector centrality for G: (OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.7038), ('C_Simic', 0.0919), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0918), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0904), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0894), ('CK_Williams', 0.0888), ('D_Levertov', 0.0888), ('S_Plath', 0.0877), ('L_Moore', 0.08647), ('V_Clemente', 0.08640), ('R_Jarrell', 0.08635), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.086326), ('R_Pinsky', 0.086325), ('M_Strand', 0.0863), ('N_Krapt', 0.0850), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', 0.0850), ('P_Harter', 0.0850), ('A_Dobrin', 0.0850), ('J_Digby', 0.0850), ('T_Villanueva', 0.0850), ('F_Gilli', 0.0850), ('J_LaGrange', 0.0850), ('C_Yuang', 0.0850), ('anya', 0.0850), ('S_Gill', 0.0850), ('P_Gershator', 0.0850), ('R_Metz', 0.0850), ('R_Cook', 0.0850), ('AR_Ammons', 0.0850), ('E_McFarland', 0.0850), ('K_Doll', 0.0850), ('K_Richards', 0.0850), ('C_Cowling', 0.0850), ('M_Mohr', 0.0850), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.0850), ('G_Murray', 0.0850), ('L_Boss', 0.0850), ('N_Whitman', 0.0850), ('R_Creeley', 0.0850), ('B_Wolak', 0.0850), ('J_Salkilld', 0.0850), ('M_Bennett', 0.0850), ('K_Rexroth', 0.0850), ('J_Dotson', 0.0850), ('M_Morrison', 0.0850), ('S_Richards', 0.0850), ('D_Mahon', 0.0850), ('CE_Rosenow', 0.0850), ('C_Norris', 0.0850), ('H_Bar_Lev', 0.0850), ('N_Saje', 0.0850), ('M_BarkanClarke', 0.0850), ('N_Stiller', 0.0850), ('Y_Otomo', 0.0850), ('A_Rich', 0.0850), ('SH_Barkan', 0.0850), ('D_Ignatow', 0.0850), ('John_Digby', 0.0850), ('E_Wylie', 0.0850), ('J_Kurowska', 0.0850), ('R_Owen', 0.0850), ('J_Ash', 0.0850), ('G_Simser', 0.0850), ('MM_Gillan', 0.0850), ('P_Harris', 0.0850), ('W_Heyen', 0.0850), ('C_Squier', 0.0850), ('J_Kacian', 0.0850), ('S_Dalachinski', 0.0850), ('Ofileanu', 0.0447), ('Vasies', 0.0311), ('Cassian', 0.0122), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.0122), ('Serban', 0.0122), ('Olaru', 0.0119), ('Brudascu', 0.0118), ('Dragomir', 0.0114), ('Grigore', 0.0112), ('Simion', 0.0111), ('Vacarescu', 0.0109), ('Foarta', 0.0108), ('Manole', 0.010587), ('Komartin', 0.010585), ('Nitescu', 0.01042), ('M_Angelou', 0.0091), ('R_Brautigan', 0.0054), ('G_Corso', 0.005481), ('M_Oliver', 0.0054), ('G_Soto', 0.0054), ('R_Edson', 0.0054), ('E_Bishop', 0.0054), ('J_Brown', 0.0054), ('K_Mattawa', 0.0054), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0054), ('I_Sadoji', 0.0054), ('C_Bukowski', 0.0054), ('M_Doty', 0.0054), ('S_Dunn', 0.0054), ('A_Sze', 0.0054), ('N_Giovanni', 0.0054), ('E_Alexander', 0.0054), ('J_Ashbery', 0.0053), ('T_Kooser', 0.0052), ('A_Notley', 0.0038), 337 ('F_Wright', 0.0037), ('C_Forche', 0.0037), ('R_Carver', 0.0037), ('CD_Wright', 0.0037), ('L_Rector', 0.0037), ('D_Nurkse', 0.0037), ('R_Haas', 0.0037), ('P_Balakian', 0.0037), ('A_Waldman', 0.0037), ('T_Lux', 0.0037), ('R_Padgett', 0.0037), ('C_Phillips', 0.0037), ('M_Swenson', 0.0037), ('Phil_Levine', 0.0037), ('R_Jones', 0.0037), ('A_Sexton', 0.0028), ('R_Dove', 0.0028), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0016), ('S_Moss', 0.001509), ('Racovita', 0.001507), ('R_Lowell', 0.0014), ('R_Wilbur', 0.00148), ('T_Hoagland', 0.00146), ('B_Collins', 0.00144), ('CA_Duffy', 0.00144), ('Y_Komunyakaa', 0.0014), ('A_Jackson', 0.0014), ('E_Miller', 0.0014), ('W_Coleman', 0.0014), ('QV_GexBreaux', 0.0014), ('J_Thompson', 0.0014), ('M_Atwood', 0.0013), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.00138), ('J_Berryman', 0.001362), ('E_Equi', 0.001361), ('P_Auster', 0.001361), ('T_Berrigan', 0.001361), ('GE_Clarke', 0.00129), ('D_Duhamel', 0.00127), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.00092), ('Mocuta', 0.00066), ('Gheorghiu', 0.00066), ('Rogojina', 0.00054), ('Suciu', 0.00039), ('Conkan', 0.00039), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', 0.00034), ('Vintila', 0.00033), ('Ciobanu', 0.000203), ('Sandu', 0.002), ('Zank', 0.002), ('Unattributed', 0.002), ('Doinas', 0.002), ('Ionescu', 0.002), ('Dochia', 0.002), ('Firan', 0.00019), ('Suiu', 0.00018), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.000175), ('Vancu', 0.000172), ('Muresanu', 0.0001669), ('Zanca', 0.00016696), ('Surleac', 0.000163), ('Olos', 0.00015), ('G_Snyder', 0.000132), ('J_Taylor', 0.000132), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.000132), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.000132), ('F_Joudah', 0.000131), ('S_Lewis', 0.000131), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.000131), ('M_Woodside', 0.0001130), ('DA_Powell', 0.00011), ('D_Baker', 0.00011), ('S_Singer', 0.00011), ('C_Wright', 0.00011), ('R_Craik', 0.00011), ('D_Berman', 0.00011), ('M_ORourke', 0.00011), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.00011), ('B_Hillman', 6.542e-05), ('E_Nauen', 6.542e-05), ('B_Mayer', 6.542e-05), ('D_DiPrima', 6.542e-05), ('E_Myles', 6.542-05), ('A_Gerstler', 6.542e-05), ('L_Hejinian', 6.542e-05), ('F_Howe', 6.542e-05), ('R_Waldrop', 6.542e-05), ('K_Knox', 6.542e-05), ('Carides', 2.715e- 05), ('A_Codrescu', 2.643e-05), ('J_Dodds', 2.458e-05), ('E_Foster', 2.315e-05), ('B_Swann', 2.2079e-05), ('L_Gregerson', 2.207e-05), ('T_Skurtu', 2.144e-05), ('P_Campion', 2.081e-05), ('B_Henry', 2.081e-05), ('V_Mort', 2.006e-05), ('M_Vincenz', 1.977e-05), ('N_Burke', 1.924e-05), ('Ieronim', 1.4520e-05), ('R_Milazzo', 3.3627e-06), ('R_Hershon', 3.2808e-06), ('Parau', 2.6696e-06), ('Micu', 2.5916e-06), ('Gradinaru', 2.4249e-06), ('A_Gritsman', 1.8365e-06), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 1.7546e-06), ('C_Merrill', 1.7546e-06), ('C_Bakken', 1.7546e-06), ('Hotaranu', 6.7773e- 07), ('A_Goldbarth', 3.2259e-07), ('A_Britt', 3.2259e-07), ('B_Ras', 8.1893e-08), ('R_Angel', 8.1893e-08), ('J_Manesiotis', 8.1893e-08), ('D_Brinks', 8.1893e-08), ('E_Hirsch', 8.1893e-08), ('Motet', 5.9873e-21), ('L_Cohen', 4.4015e-21), ('L_Hughes', 4.3753e-21), ('Rusu', 4.2495e-21), ('W_Baker', 2.5743e-21), ('B_Ross', 2.5743e-21), ('Baconsky', 2.3077e-21), ('Solomon', 1.8811e-21), ('R_Marx', 1.8272e-21), ('Sting', 1.8272e-21), ('C_Rhea', 1.8272e- 21), ('ee_cummings', 9.9222e-22), ('Patea', 5.1847e-22), ('P_deRachewiltz', 4.4310e-22), ('Oancea', 4.4310e-22), ('Stancu', 2.3891e-22), ('B_Knott', 3.8626e-23), ('Olah', 3.8626e-23), ('Popescu', 3.8626e-23), ('Samulescu', 2.0305e- 23), ('J_Tischer', 1.4358e-23), ('J_Mellor', 1.4358e-23), ('J_English', 1.05108e-23), ('Mihalache', 7.4323e-24), ('Dragomirescu', 7.4323e-24), ('Constantinescu', 8.6003e-25), ('Sociu', 8.6003e-25), ('L_Gluck', 7.8322e-25), ('Grivu', 6.7828e-25), ('Tartler', 6.7828e-25), ('AV_Rivera', 4.9654e-25), ('C_Bernstein', 4.9654e-25), ('E_Winder', 4.9654e-25), ('P_Bateman', 4.9654e-25), ('P_Killebrew', 4.9654e-25), ('J_Tate', 4.9654e-25), ('T_Roethke', 3.91610e-25), ('G_England', 3.9161e-25), ('Collective_Unattributed', 1.1296e-25), ('M_Foldes', 1.1296e-25), ('Filimon', 6.9818e-26), ('J_Ransom', 6.9818e-26), ('Moscaliuc', 3.2917e-27), ('Neacsu', 3.2917e-27), ('Chelaru', 3.2917e-27), ('Buzdugan', 3.2917e-27), ('KS_Keyss', 2.3276e-27), ('A_Dimitrov', 2.3276e-27), ('P_Boyers', 2.3276e-27), ('M_Waters', 2.3276e-27), ('A_Cohen', 2.3276e-27), ('Z_Vayma', 2.3276e-27), ('G_Stern', 2.3276e-27), ('F_Bidart', 2.3276e-27), ('Ulmeanu', 6.9003e-31), ('C_St_Aubin', 6.9003e-31), ('Ghita', 6.9003e-31), ('J_Hawkins', 6.9003e-31), ('Trandafir', 6.9003e-31), ('Gardner', 6.9003e-31), ('P_Landsman', 6.9003e-31), ('Alina_Sorescu', 6.9003e-31), ('J_Haines', 6.9003e-31), ('Boagiu', 6.9003e-31), ('Gavrilovici', 6.9003e-31), ('Coman', 6.9003e-31), ('J_Heavily', 6.9003e-31), ('Nicolau', 6.9003e-31), ('RL_Schwartz', 6.9003e-31), ('S_Alexie', 6.9003e-31), ('Pojoga', 6.9003e-31), ('Prodan', 6.9003e-31), ('Sabau', 6.9003e- 31), ('Cosma', 6.9003e-31), ('Mircea', 6.9003e-31), ('MAM_Fitzpatrick', 6.9003e-31), ('Popa', 6.9003e-31), ('J_Brodsky', 6.9003e-31), ('A_Carson', 6.9003e-31), ('DM_Andrei', 6.9003e-31), ('Nicolae', 6.9003e-31), ('D_Riggs', 6.9003e-31), ('A_Grace', 6.9003e-31), ('C_Moscovici', 6.9003e-31), ('Sibisan', 6.9003e-31), ('L_Diaz', 6.9003e-31), ('B_Rashbaum', 6.9003e-31), ('K_Graber', 6.9003e-31)]) Betweenness centrality for G0: (OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.7591), ('Vasies', 0.3556), ('J_Ashbery', 0.2304), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.2271), ('C_Simic', 0.1814), ('Cassian', 0.16761), ('Ofileanu', 0.1668), ('CK_Williams', 0.1142), ('D_Levertov', 0.1142), ('S_Plath', 0.1131), ('A_Notley', 0.0950), ('R_Jarrell', 0.0950), ('Rogojina', 0.08864664747017688), ('Simion', 0.0877), ('Foarta', 0.0867), ('S_Moss', 0.0843), ('Firan', 0.0771), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0712), ('J_Berryman', 0.0700), ('V_Clemente', 0.0700), ('L_Moore', 0.0655), ('Grigore', 0.0624), ('Vancu', 0.06207), ('Brudascu', 0.0620), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0601), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0591), ('M_Woodside', 0.0578), ('Olaru', 0.0571), ('Carides', 0.0534), ('Ieronim', 0.0517), ('Hotaranu', 0.0471), ('M_Angelou', 338 0.0390), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0377), ('T_Skurtu', 0.0358), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.03570), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0317), ('A_Sexton', 0.0275), ('Surleac', 0.0270), ('Manole', 0.0269), ('T_Hoagland', 0.0269), ('T_Kooser', 0.0232), ('Dragomir', 0.0200), ('A_Gritsman', 0.0182), ('Parau', 0.01805), ('Suiu', 0.01805), ('GE_Clarke', 0.01801), ('R_Pinsky', 0.01801), ('Vacarescu', 0.0160), ('R_Dove', 0.0128), ('R_Brautigan', 0.0090), ('V_Mort', 0.0090), ('M_Strand', 0.0090), ('Olos', 0.0090), ('M_Atwood', 0.0090), ('Komartin', 0.0090), ('Ciobanu', 0.0090), ('G_Corso', 0.0090), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.0090), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.00012), all other nodes = 0.0]) Closeness centrality for G0: (OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.3216), ('C_Simic', 0.2836), ('CK_Williams', 0.2815), ('D_Levertov', 0.2815), ('Vasies', 0.2745), ('Cassian', 0.2584), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.2578), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.2549), ('S_Plath', 0.2531), ('R_Jarrell', 0.2497), ('WS_Merwin', 0.2491), ('L_Moore', 0.2485), ('Ofileanu', 0.2485), ('V_Clemente', 0.2480), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.2458), ('R_Pinsky', 0.2447), ('M_Strand', 0.2441), ('N_Krapt', 0.2436), ('R_Creeley', 0.2436), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', 0.2436), ('P_Harter', 0.2436), ('A_Dobrin', 0.2436), ('J_Digby', 0.2436), ('N_Stiller', 0.2436), ('T_Villanueva', 0.2436), ('J_LaGrange', 0.2436), ('C_Yuang', 0.2436), ('anya', 0.2436), ('S_Gill', 0.2436), ('P_Gershator', 0.2436), ('R_Metz', 0.2436), ('R_Cook', 0.2436), ('AR_Ammons', 0.2436), ('E_McFarland', 0.2436), ('K_Doll', 0.2436), ('D_Ignatow', 0.2436), ('J_Ash', 0.2436), ('C_Norris', 0.2436), ('K_Richards', 0.2436), ('C_Cowling', 0.2436), ('N_Saje', 0.2436), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.2436), ('G_Murray', 0.2436), ('L_Boss', 0.2436), ('N_Whitman', 0.2436), ('J_Salkilld', 0.2436), ('B_Wolak', 0.2436), ('M_Bennett', 0.2436), ('John_Digby', 0.2436), ('J_Dotson', 0.2436), ('M_Morrison', 0.2436), ('S_Richards', 0.2436), ('D_Mahon', 0.2436), ('R_Owen', 0.2436), ('CE_Rosenow', 0.2436), ('H_Bar_Lev', 0.2436), ('F_Gilli', 0.2436), ('M_Mohr', 0.2436), ('M_BarkanClarke', 0.2436), ('Y_Otomo', 0.2436), ('A_Rich', 0.2436), ('SH_Barkan', 0.2436), ('K_Rexroth', 0.2436), ('E_Wylie', 0.2436), ('J_Kurowska', 0.2436), ('MM_Gillan', 0.2436), ('P_Harris', 0.2436), ('W_Heyen', 0.2436), ('C_Squier', 0.2436), ('J_Kacian', 0.2436), ('S_Dalachinski', 0.2436), ('G_Simser', 0.2436), ('J_Ashbery', 0.2358), ('M_Angelou', 0.2276), ('Olaru', 0.2271), ('A_Notley', 0.2203), ('T_Kooser', 0.2199), ('C_Forche', 0.2156), ('T_Lux', 0.2156), ('R_Padgett', 0.2156), ('R_Carver', 0.2156), ('D_Nurkse', 0.2156), ('CD_Wright', 0.2156), ('M_Swenson', 0.2156), ('L_Rector', 0.2156), ('P_Balakian', 0.2156), ('R_Haas', 0.2156), ('F_Wright', 0.2156), ('A_Waldman', 0.2156), ('C_Phillips', 0.2156), ('Phil_Levine', 0.2156), ('R_Jones', 0.2156), ('S_Moss', 0.2104), ('Simion', 0.2090), ('Dragomir', 0.2071), ('Brudascu', 0.2059), ('R_Lowell', 0.2055), ('R_Wilbur', 0.2055), ('Vacarescu', 0.2040), ('Foarta', 0.2036), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.2023), ('Grigore', 0.2014), ('Serban', 0.1998), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.1998), ('R_Brautigan', 0.1996), ('G_Corso', 0.1996), ('G_Soto', 0.1992), ("F_O'Hara", 0.1992), ('E_Bishop', 0.1992), ('R_Edson', 0.1992), ('J_Brown', 0.1992), ('K_Mattawa', 0.1992), ('M_Doty', 0.1992), ('M_Oliver', 0.1992), ('C_Bukowski', 0.1992), ('S_Dunn', 0.1992), ('A_Sze', 0.1992), ('I_Sadoji', 0.1992), ('N_Giovanni', 0.1992), ('E_Alexander', 0.1992), ('Manole', 0.1985), ('Komartin', 0.1971), ('Nitescu', 0.1964), ('T_Hoagland', 0.1861), ('B_Collins', 0.1852), ('CA_Duffy', 0.1852), ('Rogojina', 0.1837), ('Firan', 0.1779), ('A_Sexton', 0.1763), ('R_Dove', 0.1755), ('J_Berryman', 0.1752), ('M_Woodside', 0.1718), ('TS_Eliot', 0.1715), ('A_Jackson', 0.1709), ('Y_Komunyakaa', 0.1709), ('QV_GexBreaux', 0.1709), ('W_Coleman', 0.1709), ('J_Thompson', 0.1709), ('E_Miller', 0.1709), ('Racovita', 0.17052), ('Surleac', 0.1696), ('F_Joudah', 0.1689), ('S_Lewis', 0.1689), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.1689), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.16896), ('G_Snyder', 0.1685), ('J_Taylor', 0.1685), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.1685), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.1685), ('DA_Powell', 0.1684), ('D_Baker', 0.1684), ('S_Singer', 0.1684), ('R_Craik', 0.1684), ('C_Wright', 0.1684), ('D_Berman', 0.1684), ('M_ORourke', 0.1684), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.1684), ('M_Atwood', 0.1680), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.1680), ('E_Equi', 0.1678), ('T_Berrigan', 0.1678), ('P_Auster', 0.1678), ('Mocuta', 0.1665), ('Gheorghiu', 0.1665), ('GE_Clarke', 0.1662), ('D_Duhamel', 0.1648), ('Suiu', 0.1575), ('E_Myles', 0.1553), ('L_Hejinian', 0.1553), ('B_Hillman', 0.1553), ('E_Nauen', 0.1553), ('B_Mayer', 0.1553), ('A_Gerstler', 0.1553), ('F_Howe', 0.1553), ('D_DiPrima', 0.1553), ('R_Waldrop', 0.1553), ('K_Knox', 0.1553), ('Carides', 0.1541), ('A_Codrescu', 0.1526), ('E_Foster', 0.1511), ('Vancu', 0.1506), ('Suciu', 0.1501), ('Conkan', 0.1501), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', 0.1500), ('Ieronim', 0.1497), ('Vintila', 0.1494), ('Ciobanu', 0.1467), ('Zank', 0.1465), ('Unattributed', 0.1465), ('Sandu', 0.1465), ('Doinas', 0.1465), ('Ionescu', 0.1465), ('Dochia', 0.1465), ('V_Mort', 0.1452), ('M_Vincenz', 0.1451), ('Muresanu', 0.1439), ('Zanca', 0.1439), ('Olos', 0.1428), ('R_Milazzo', 0.1373), ('B_Swann', 0.1361), ('L_Gregerson', 0.1361), ('R_Hershon', 0.1336), ('A_Gritsman', 0.1322), ('T_Skurtu', 0.1316), ('B_Henry', 0.1310), ('P_Campion', 0.1310), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.1303), ('C_Merrill', 0.1303), ('C_Bakken', 0.1303), ('Hotaranu', 0.1281), ('J_Dodds', 0.1280), ('Gradinaru', 0.1269), ('N_Burke', 0.1250), ('Parau', 0.1166), ('Micu', 0.1163), ('B_Ras', 0.1136), ('R_Angel', 0.1136), ('D_Brinks', 0.1136), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.1136), ('E_Hirsch', 0.1136), ('A_Britt', 0.1044), ('A_Goldbarth', 0.1044)]) 339 Eigenvector centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Iacob', 0.7038), ('C_Simic', 0.0919), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0918), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0904), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0894), ('CK_Williams', 0.0888), ('D_Levertov', 0.0888), ('S_Plath', 0.0877), ('L_Moore', 0.0864), ('V_Clemente', 0.0864), ('R_Jarrell', 0.0863), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.0863), ('R_Pinsky', 0.08632), ('M_Strand', 0.08630), ('R_Creeley', 0.0850), ('J_Sadre_Orfai', 0.0850), ('P_Harter', 0.0850), ('A_Dobrin', 0.0850), ('J_Digby', 0.0850), ('T_Villanueva', 0.0850), ('J_LaGrange', 0.0850), ('C_Yuang', 0.0850), ('anya', 0.0850), ('S_Gill', 0.0850), ('P_Gershator', 0.0850), ('R_Cook', 0.0850), ('AR_Ammons', 0.0850), ('E_McFarland', 0.0850), ('K_Doll', 0.0850), ('J_Ash', 0.0850), ('K_Richards', 0.0850), ('C_Cowling', 0.0850), ('N_Saje', 0.0850), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.0850), ('G_Murray', 0.0850), ('N_Whitman', 0.0850), ('L_Boss', 0.0850), ('J_Salkilld', 0.0850), ('B_Wolak', 0.0850), ('M_Bennett', 0.0850), ('John_Digby', 0.0850), ('J_Dotson', 0.0850), ('M_Morrison', 0.0850), ('S_Richards', 0.0850), ('D_Mahon', 0.0850), ('N_Krapt', 0.0850), ('CE_Rosenow', 0.0850), ('H_Bar_Lev', 0.0850), ('F_Gilli', 0.0850), ('M_Mohr', 0.0850), ('N_Stiller', 0.0850), ('Y_Otomo', 0.0850), ('A_Rich', 0.0850), ('SH_Barkan', 0.0850), ('R_Metz', 0.0850), ('D_Ignatow', 0.0850), ('K_Rexroth', 0.0850), ('E_Wylie', 0.0850), ('J_Kurowska', 0.0850), ('R_Owen', 0.0850), ('G_Simser', 0.0850), ('M_BarkanClarke', 0.0850), ('MM_Gillan', 0.0850), ('P_Harris', 0.0850), ('C_Norris', 0.0850), ('C_Squier', 0.0850), ('J_Kacian', 0.0850), ('S_Dalachinski', 0.0850), ('W_Heyen', 0.0850), ('Ofileanu', 0.0447), ('Vasies', 0.0311), ('Cassian', 0.012297), ('Serban', 0.0122), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.0122), ('Olaru', 0.0119), ('Brudascu', 0.0118), ('Dragomir', 0.0114), ('Grigore', 0.0112), ('Simion', 0.0111), ('Vacarescu', 0.0109), ('Foarta', 0.0108), ('Manole', 0.010588), ('Komartin', 0.010585), ('Nitescu', 0.0104), ('M_Angelou', 0.0091), ('R_Brautigan', 0.00548), ('G_Corso', 0.00548), ('G_Soto', 0.0054), ('E_Bishop', 0.0054), ('J_Brown', 0.0054), ('K_Mattawa', 0.0054), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0054), ('I_Sadoji', 0.0054), ('M_Oliver', 0.0054), ('C_Bukowski', 0.0054), ('S_Dunn', 0.0054), ('A_Sze', 0.0054), ('R_Edson', 0.0054), ('N_Giovanni', 0.0054), ('M_Doty', 0.0054), ('E_Alexander', 0.0054), ('J_Ashbery', 0.0053), ('T_Kooser', 0.0052), ('A_Notley', 0.0038), ('C_Forche', 0.0037), ('T_Lux', 0.0037), ('R_Padgett', 0.0037), ('R_Carver', 0.0037), ('D_Nurkse', 0.0037), ('CD_Wright', 0.0037), ('L_Rector', 0.0037), ('P_Balakian', 0.0037), ('R_Haas', 0.0037), ('F_Wright', 0.0037), ('A_Waldman', 0.0037), ('C_Phillips', 0.0037), ('M_Swenson', 0.0037), ('Phil_Levine', 0.0037), ('R_Jones', 0.0037), ('A_Sexton', 0.00284), ('R_Dove', 0.00281), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0016), ('S_Moss', 0.001509), ('Racovita', 0.001507), ('R_Lowell', 0.00148), ('R_Wilbur', 0.00148), ('T_Hoagland', 0.00146), ('B_Collins', 0.00144), ('CA_Duffy', 0.00144), ('Y_Komunyakaa', 0.0142), ('A_Jackson', 0.0142), ('E_Miller', 0.0142), ('QV_GexBreaux', 0.0142), ('W_Coleman', 0.0142), ('J_Thompson', 0.0142), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.0013), ('M_Atwood', 0.00138), ('J_Berryman', 0.001362), ('E_Equi', 0.00136), ('T_Berrigan', 0.001361), ('P_Auster', 0.001361), ('GE_Clarke', 0.00129), ('D_Duhamel', 0.00127), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.00092), ('Mocuta', 0.00066), ('Gheorghiu', 0.00066), ('Rogojina', 0.00054), ('Suciu', 0.00039), ('Conkan', 0.00039), ('Puscas_Pacuraru', 0.000343), ('Vintila', 0.00033), ('Ciobanu', 0.00020), ('Zank', 0.0002), ('Unattributed', 0.0002), ('Sandu', 0.0002), ('Doinas', 0.0002), ('Ionescu', 0.0002), ('Dochia', 0.0002), ('Firan', 0.00019), ('Suiu', 0.00018), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.000175), ('Vancu', 0.000172), ('Muresanu', 0.000166), ('Zanca', 0.000166), ('Surleac', 0.000163), ('Olos', 0.00015), ('J_Taylor', 0.00013), ('G_Snyder', 0.00013), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.000132), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.000132), ('F_Joudah', 0.000131), ('S_Lewis', 0.000131), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.000131), ('M_Woodside', 0.000113), ('R_Craik', 0.0001113), ('DA_Powell', 0.0001113), ('C_Wright', 0.0001113), ('D_Baker', 0.0001113), ('S_Singer', 0.0001113), ('D_Berman', 0.0001113), ('M_ORourke', 0.0001113), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.00011), ('A_Gerstler', 6.54182e-05), ('E_Myles', 6.54182e-05), ('L_Hejinian', 6.54182e- 05), ('B_Hillman', 6.54182e-05), ('E_Nauen', 6.54182e-05), ('B_Mayer', 6.54182e-05), ('F_Howe', 6.54182e-05), ('D_DiPrima', 6.54182e-05), ('R_Waldrop', 6.54182e-05), ('K_Knox', 6.54182e-05), ('Carides', 2.7151e-05), ('A_Codrescu', 2.6435e-05), ('J_Dodds', 2.4583e-05), ('E_Foster', 2.3154e-05), ('B_Swann', 2.2078e-05), ('L_Gregerson', 2.2078e-05), ('T_Skurtu', 2.1448e-05), ('P_Campion', 2.0812e-05), ('B_Henry', 2.0812e-05), ('V_Mort', 2.0068e-05), ('M_Vincenz', 1.9775e-05), ('N_Burke', 1.9241e-05), ('Ieronim', 1.4521e-05), ('R_Milazzo', 3.3628e-06), ('R_Hershon', 3.2809e-06), ('Parau', 2.6697e-06), ('Micu', 2.5917e-06), ('Gradinaru', 2.4249e-06), ('A_Gritsman', 1.8365e-06), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 1.7546e-06), ('C_Merrill', 1.7546e-06), ('C_Bakken', 1.7546e-06), ('Hotaranu', 6.777e-07), ('A_Britt', 3.225e-07), ('A_Goldbarth', 3.2258e-07), ('B_Ras', 8.1894e-08), ('D_Brinks', 8.1894e-08), ('R_Angel', 8.1894e-08), ('J_Manesiotis', 8.1894e-08), ('E_Hirsch', 8.1894e-08)]) Betweenness centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Motet', 0.7090), ('L_Cohen', 0.5090), ('Rusu', 0.4909), ('L_Hughes', 0.4727), ('Baconsky', 0.1818), ('C_Rhea', 0.0), ('ee_cummings', 0.0), ('B_Ross', 0.0), ('Sting', 0.0), ('R_Marx', 0.0), ('Solomon', 0.0), ('W_Baker', 0.0)]) 340 Closeness centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Motet', 0.5), ('L_Cohen', 0.4583), ('L_Hughes', 0.4230), ('Rusu', 0.3928), ('B_Ross', 0.34375), ('W_Baker', 0.34375), ('Baconsky', 0.3235), ('Solomon', 0.3055), ('C_Rhea', 0.2894), ('Sting', 0.2894), ('R_Marx', 0.2894), ('ee_cummings', 0.25)]) Eigenvector centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Motet', 0.5343), ('L_Cohen', 0.3928), ('L_Hughes', 0.3905), ('Rusu', 0.3792), ('B_Ross', 0.2297), ('W_Baker', 0.2297), ('Baconsky', 0.2059), ('Solomon', 0.1679), ('C_Rhea', 0.1630), ('Sting', 0.1630), ('R_Marx', 0.1630), ('ee_cummings', 0.0885)]) Betweenness centrality for G2: (OrderedDict([('Samulescu', 0.8), ('J_Tischer', 0.4), ('J_Mellor', 0.4), ('Mihalache', 0.0), ('J_English', 0.0), ('Dragomirescu', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G2: (OrderedDict([('Samulescu', 0.7142857142857143), ('J_Tischer', 0.5555), ('J_Mellor', 0.5555), ('J_English', 0.4545), ('Mihalache', 0.3846), ('Dragomirescu', 0.3846)]) Eigenvector centrality for G2: (OrderedDict([('Samulescu', 0.6279), ('J_Tischer', 0.4440), ('J_Mellor', 0.4440), ('J_English', 0.3250), ('Mihalache', 0.2298), ('Dragomirescu', 0.2298)]) 341 Annex 3 – NetworkX Analysis of the Transnational410 U.S. and Canadian Poetry Translations in PP (2007-2017) SIZE Number of components, nodes, and edges G components = 14 G nodes = 87 G edges = 84 G0 nodes = 42 (48.2%) G0 edges = 52 (61.9%) G1 nodes = 7 (0.08%) G1 edges = 6 (0.071%) G2 nodes = 6 (0.068%) G2 edges = 5 (0.059%) G3-13 nodes = 32 (36.7%) G3-13 edges = 21 (25%) DENSITY The portion of the potential connections in a network that are actual connections def density(G): x = len(G.edges) y = len(G.nodes) return 2*x / (y*(y-1)) G’s density is 0.0224 G0’s density is 0.0580 G1’s density is 0.2857 G2’s density is 0.(3) AVERAGE DEGREE Average degree (average number of links per node) G = 1.9310 G0 = 2.3809 G1 = 1.7142 G2 = 1.6666 Weighted average degree (mean sum of the weights assigned to the nodes’ links) G = 2.3032 G0 = 2.9523 G1 = 1.7142 G2 = 1.6666 CLUSTERING G's average clustering: 0.175566310412 G1's average clustering: 0.0 G0's average clustering: 0.220815928711 G2's average clustering: 0.0 Clustering for G: OrderedDict([('P_deRachewiltz', 1.0), ('F_Joudah', 1.0), ('S_Lewis', 1.0), ('A_Codrescu', 1.0), ('Olah', 1.0), ('Popescu', 1.0), ('Patea', 1.0), ('GC_Waldrep', 1.0), ('B_Knott', 1.0), ('J_Taylor', 1.0), ('Oancea', 1.0), ('G_Snyder', 1.0), ('I_Kaminsky', 1.0), ('J_Rothenberg', 1.0), ('Surleac', 0.5), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.4), ('Firan', 0.1(6)), ('Carides', 0.1(6)), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.04093), (all other nodes = 0.0)]) Clustering for G0: OrderedDict([('F_Joudah', 1.0), ('GC_Waldrep', 1.0), ('S_Lewis', 1.0), ('J_Taylor', 1.0), ('J_Rothenberg', 1.0), ('A_Codrescu', 1.0), ('I_Kaminsky', 1.0), ('G_Snyder', 1.0), ('Surleac', 0.5), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.4), ('Carides', 0.1(6)), ('Firan', 0.1(6)), ('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.04093567251461988), all other nodes, 0]) Clustering for G1: OrderedDict([('M_Ondaatje', 0), ('M_Atwood', 0), ('Grigore', 0), ('P_Auster', 0), ('E_Equi', 0), ('T_Berrigan', 0)) 410 The nodes, edges, and the degree for all the vertices in this network have been defined in Annex 2. 342 Clustering for G2: OrderedDict([('T_Kooser', 0), ('B_Collins', 0), ('T_Hoagland', 0), ('Olaru', 0), ('WS_Merwin', 0), ('CA_Duffy', 0)]) CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: (OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.1575), ('Ieronim', 0.0772), ('M_Woodside', 0.0686), ('Hotaranu', 0.0663), ('Cassian', 0.06552), ('J_Ashbery', 0.0578), ('A_Gritsman', 0.05184), ('Firan', 0.040902), ('S_Moss', 0.04008), ('Carides', 0.0310), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0242), ('Grigore', 0.0041), ('Olaru', 0.0027), ('GE_Clarke', 0.0010), ('Manole', 0.00082), ('Constantinescu', 0.00082), ('Olos', 0.00082), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.00082), ('TS_Eliot', 0.00054), ('Ciobanu', 0.00054), ('Surleac', 0.00041), ('Moscaliuc', 0.00027), all other nodes, 0.0]) Closeness centrality for G: (OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.1844), ('M_Woodside', 0.16288), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1563), ('Ieronim', 0.15035), ('Cassian', 0.1406), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.1376), ('Surleac', 0.1366), ('F_Joudah', 0.1348), ('S_Lewis', 0.1348), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.1348), ('J_Taylor', 0.1348), ('A_Gritsman', 0.1348), ('G_Snyder', 0.1348), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.1348), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.1348), ('DA_Powell', 0.1338), ('D_Baker', 0.1338), ('S_Singer', 0.1338), ('R_Craik', 0.1338), ('C_Wright', 0.1338), ('D_Berman', 0.1338), ('M_ORourke', 0.1338), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.1338), ('S_Moss', 0.1269), ('Hotaranu', 0.1245), ('Firan', 0.1177), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.1149), ('C_Merrill', 0.1149), ('C_Bakken', 0.1149), ('R_Milazzo', 0.1110), ('Carides', 0.1098), ('R_Lowell', 0.1091), ('R_Wilbur', 0.1091), ('C_Simic', 0.1091), ('A_Codrescu', 0.1018), ('B_Ras', 0.0992), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.0992), ('D_Brinks', 0.0992), ('R_Angel', 0.0992), ('E_Hirsch', 0.0992), ('E_Foster', 0.0948), ('R_Hershon', 0.0896), ('Grigore', 0.0697), ('Olaru', 0.0581), ('E_Equi', 0.0380), ('M_Atwood', 0.0380), ('P_Auster', 0.0380), ('T_Berrigan', 0.0380), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.0380), ('Constantinescu', 0.0348), ('B_Collins', 0.0322), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0322), ('CA_Duffy', 0.0322), ('T_Kooser', 0.0322), ('T_Hoagland', 0.0322), ('GE_Clarke', 0.03100), ('Manole', 0.0265), ('Olos', 0.0265), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0261), ('Ciobanu', 0.0261), ('P_deRachewiltz', 0.0232), ('Moscaliuc', 0.0232), ('Olah', 0.0232), ('Popescu', 0.0232), ('Patea', 0.0232), ('B_Knott', 0.0232), ('Oancea', 0.0232), ('AV_Rivera', 0.0209), ('E_Winder', 0.0209), ('P_Bateman', 0.0209), ('E_Amatoritsero', 0.0186), ('N_Burke', 0.01860), ('Zank', 0.01744), ('J_Dodds', 0.01744), ('M_Waters', 0.01550), ('G_Stern', 0.0155), ('J_Hawkins', 0.0116), ('Micu', 0.0116), ('DM_Andrei', 0.0116), ('J_Heavily', 0.0116), ('Nicolau', 0.0116), ('Cosma', 0.0116), ('J_Haines', 0.0116), ('T_Skurtu', 0.0116), ('Gardner', 0.0116), ('Sibisan', 0.0116)]) Eigenvector centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.6517), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.2896), ('Surleac', 0.2449), ('G_Snyder', 0.1920), ('J_Taylor', 0.1920), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.1920), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.1920), ('F_Joudah', 0.1829), ('S_Lewis', 0.1829), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.1829), ('M_Woodside', 0.1399), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1399), ('DA_Powell', 0.1329), ('C_Wright', 0.1329), ('D_Baker', 0.1329), ('S_Singer', 0.1329), ('R_Craik', 0.1329), ('D_Berman', 0.1329), ('M_ORourke', 0.1329), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.1329), ('Ieronim', 0.0343), ('Cassian', 0.03434634006189804), ('A_Gritsman', 0.00743418670531657), ('S_Moss', 0.0073), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.0070), ('C_Merrill', 0.0070), ('C_Bakken', 0.0070), ('R_Lowell', 0.0070), ('R_Wilbur', 0.0070), ('C_Simic', 0.0070), ('Hotaranu', 0.0020), ('Firan', 0.0018), ('Carides', 0.0006), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0005), ('A_Codrescu', 0.00049), ('B_Ras', 0.00042), ('D_Brinks', 0.00042), ('R_Angel', 0.00042), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.00042), ('E_Hirsch', 0.000423), ('E_Foster', 0.00037), ('R_Hershon', 0.00012), ('Grigore', 1.0931e-06), ('T_Berrigan', 4.4629e-07), ('E_Equi', 4.4629e-07), ('M_Atwood', 4.4629e-07), ('P_Auster', 4.4629e-07), ('M_Ondaatje', 4.4629e-07), ('Olaru', 2.2144e-07), ('B_Collins', 9.9033e-08), ('WS_Merwin', 9.9033e-08), ('CA_Duffy', 9.9033e-08), ('T_Kooser', 9.9033e-08), ('T_Hoagland', 9.9033e-08), ('P_deRachewiltz', 2.2221e-08), ('Olah', 2.2221e-08), ('Popescu', 2.2221e-08), ('Patea', 2.2221e-08), ('B_Knott', 2.2221e-08), ('Oancea', 2.2221e-08), ('Constantinescu', 3.2139e-09), ('GE_Clarke', 2.92692e-09), ('Manole', 2.5347e-09), ('Olos', 2.5347e-09), ('AV_Rivera', 1.8555e-09), ('E_Winder', 1.8555e-09), ('P_Bateman', 1.8555e-09), ('E_Amatoritsero', 1.4634e-09), ('N_Burke', 1.4634e-09), ('TS_Eliot', 9.9026e- 10), ('Ciobanu', 9.9026e-10), ('Zank', 6.1201e-10), ('J_Dodds', 6.1201e-10), ('Moscaliuc', 1.4595e-10), ('M_Waters', 1.0320e-10), ('G_Stern', 1.0320e-10), ('DM_Andrei', 1.3200e-12), ('Nicolau', 1.3200e-12), ('J_Hawkins', 1.3200e-12), 343 ('Micu', 1.3200e-12), ('J_Heavily', 1.3200e-12), ('Cosma', 1.3200e-12), ('J_Haines', 1.3200e-12), ('T_Skurtu', 1.3200e- 12), ('Gardner', 1.3200e-12), ('Sibisan', 1.3200e-12)]) Betweenness centrality for G0: (OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.7024), ('Ieronim', 0.3445), ('M_Woodside', 0.3060), ('Hotaranu', 0.2957), ('Cassian', 0.2920), ('J_Ashbery', 0.2579), ('A_Gritsman', 0.2310), ('Firan', 0.1823), ('S_Moss', 0.1786), ('Carides', 0.1384), ('R_Milazzo', 0.1079), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.0036), ('Surleac', 0.0018), all other nodes, 0.0]) Closeness centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.3867924528301887), ('M_Woodside', 0.3416666666666667), ('J_Ashbery', 0.328), ('Ieronim', 0.3153846153846154), ('Cassian', 0.2949640287769784), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.2887323943661972), ('Surleac', 0.2867132867132867), ('A_Gritsman', 0.2827586206896552), ('F_Joudah', 0.2827586206896552), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.2827586206896552), ('S_Lewis', 0.2827586206896552), ('J_Taylor', 0.2827586206896552), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.2827586206896552), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.2827586206896552), ('G_Snyder', 0.2827586206896552), ('R_Craik', 0.2808219178082192), ('M_ORourke', 0.2808219178082192), ('C_Wright', 0.2808219178082192), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.2808219178082192), ('DA_Powell', 0.2808219178082192), ('D_Berman', 0.2808219178082192), ('D_Baker', 0.2808219178082192), ('S_Singer', 0.2808219178082192), ('S_Moss', 0.2662337662337662), ('Hotaranu', 0.2611464968152866), ('Firan', 0.2469879518072289), ('C_Merrill', 0.2411764705882353), ('C_Bakken', 0.2411764705882353), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.2411764705882353), ('R_Milazzo', 0.23295454545454544), ('Carides', 0.2303370786516854), ('R_Lowell', 0.22905027932960895), ('C_Simic', 0.22905027932960895), ('R_Wilbur', 0.22905027932960895), ('A_Codrescu', 0.21354166666666666), ('B_Ras', 0.20812182741116753), ('R_Angel', 0.20812182741116753), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.20812182741116753), ('E_Hirsch', 0.20812182741116753), ('D_Brinks', 0.20812182741116753), ('E_Foster', 0.19902912621359223), ('R_Hershon', 0.18807339449541285)])) ('Eigenvector centrality for G0:', OrderedDict([('Chris_Tanasescu', 0.6517856320684443), ('Raluca_Tanasescu', 0.28966697185201606), ('Surleac', 0.24490171267852923), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.19204975609031452), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.19204975609031452), ('G_Snyder', 0.19204975609031452), ('J_Taylor', 0.19204975609031452), ('F_Joudah', 0.18291796886433842), ('S_Lewis', 0.18291796886433842), ('GC_Waldrep', 0.18291796886433842), ('M_Woodside', 0.1399693976087721), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1399662237411414), ('R_Craik', 0.13295973296778296), ('M_ORourke', 0.13295973296778296), ('C_Wright', 0.13295973296778296), ('PH_Starzinger', 0.13295973296778296), ('DA_Powell', 0.13295973296778296), ('S_Singer', 0.13295973296778296), ('D_Baker', 0.13295973296778296), ('D_Berman', 0.13295973296778296), ('Ieronim', 0.034359939271099), ('Cassian', 0.034345371517672474), ('A_Gritsman', 0.007431751743697002), ('S_Moss', 0.007375898171677961), ('C_Merrill', 0.00700966464098915), ('C_Bakken', 0.00700966464098915), ('C_Antao_Xavier', 0.00700966464098915), ('R_Lowell', 0.007006490773358442), ('C_Simic', 0.007006490773358442), ('R_Wilbur', 0.007006490773358442), ('Hotaranu', 0.002062172045201215), ('Firan', 0.0018072240246305763), ('Carides', 0.0006091546479640514), ('R_Milazzo', 0.000547225144758008), ('A_Codrescu', 0.000494545440369676), ('B_Ras', 0.0004220871027078517), ('D_Brinks', 0.0004220871027078517), ('R_Angel', 0.0004220871027078517), ('J_Manesiotis', 0.0004220871027078517), ('E_Hirsch', 0.0004220871027078517), ('E_Foster', 0.0003694073983195197), ('R_Hershon', 0.00012513804205015641)]) Betweenness centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Grigore', 1.0), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.0), ('M_Atwood', 0.0), ('P_Auster', 0.0), ('E_Equi', 0.0), ('T_Berrigan', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Grigore', 1.0), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.5454545454545454), ('M_Atwood', 0.5454545454545454), ('P_Auster', 0.5454545454545454), ('E_Equi', 0.5454545454545454), ('T_Berrigan', 0.5454545454545454)])) 344 Eigenvector centrality for G1: (OrderedDict([('Grigore', 0.7071065004428642), ('M_Ondaatje', 0.2886752492078963), ('M_Atwood', 0.2886752492078963), ('E_Equi', 0.2886752492078963), ('P_Auster', 0.2886752492078963), ('T_Berrigan', 0.2886752492078963)])) Betweenness centrality for G2: OrderedDict([('Olaru', 1.0), ('T_Kooser', 0.0), ('B_Collins', 0.0), ('T_Hoagland', 0.0), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0), ('CA_Duffy', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G2: (OrderedDict([('Olaru', 1.0), ('T_Kooser', 0.5555), ('B_Collins', 0.5555), ('T_Hoagland', 0.55556), ('WS_Merwin', 0.5555), ('CA_Duffy', 0.5555)]) Eigenvector centrality for G2: OrderedDict([('Olaru', 0.70710), ('T_Kooser', 0.3162), ('B_Collins', 0.3162), ('T_Hoagland', 0.3162), ('WS_Merwin', 0.3162), ('CA_Duffy', 0.3162)]) 345 Annex 4 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary American Poetry Author-Collections Translated before 1989 G's nodes are: [('Albatros', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('D_Wakoski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Pound', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Univers', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Ursu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('WS_Merwin', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Caraion', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ("F_O'Hara", {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Covaci', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('WD_Snodgrass', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Plath', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('T_Roethke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('TS_Eliot', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('IA_Popa', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Nicolescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Junimea', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('W_Stevens', {'capacity': 'author'})] G's edges are: [('Albatros', 'TS_Eliot', {'translator': 'Covaci'}), ('Albatros', 'Covaci', {'translation': 'TS_Eliot'}), ('D_Wakoski', 'Univers', {'translator': 'Ursu'}), ('D_Wakoski', 'Ursu', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Pound', 'Caraion', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Pound', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {'publisher': 'Junimea'}), ('Pound', 'Univers', {'translator': 'Caraion'}), ('Pound', 'Junimea', {'translator': 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu'}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'Junimea', {'translation': 'Pound'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', "F_O'Hara", {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'T_Roethke', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'Univers', {'translation': "F_O'Hara"}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'WS_Merwin', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'W_Stevens', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Univers', 'IA_Popa', {'translation': 'WD_Snodgrass'}), ('Univers', 'Ursu', {'translation': 'D_Wakoski'}), ('Univers', 'WS_Merwin', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'Caraion', {'translation': 'Pound'}), ('Univers', "F_O'Hara", {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'WD_Snodgrass', {'translator': 'IA_Popa'}), ('Univers', 'S_Plath', {'translator': 'Nicolescu'}), ('Univers', 'T_Roethke', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'Nicolescu', {'translation': 'S_Plath'}), ('Univers', 'W_Stevens', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Covaci', 'TS_Eliot', {'publisher': 'Albatros'}), ('WD_Snodgrass', 'IA_Popa', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('S_Plath', 'Nicolescu', {'publisher': 'Univers'})] SIZE The number of G's components: 2 G's size: 19 The number of edges in G: 27 G0's size: 16 The number of edges in G0: 24 G1's size: 3 The number of edges in G1: 3 AVERAGE DEGREE & DENSITY The average degree for G: 2.8421 G's density: 0.1578 The average degree for G0: 3.0 G0's density: 0.2 G1's average degree: 2.0 G1's density: 1.0 CLUSTERING G's average clustering: 0.8860 G0's average clustering: 0.8647 G1's average clustering: 1.0 G0's nodes are: [('IA_Popa', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('D_Wakoski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Pound', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Univers', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Ursu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('WS_Merwin', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Caraion', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ("F_O'Hara", {'capacity': 'author'}), ('WD_Snodgrass', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Plath', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('T_Roethke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Nicolescu', {'capacity': 'translator'}), ('Junimea', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('W_Stevens', {'capacity': 'author'})] 346 G0's edges are: [('IA_Popa', 'Univers', {'translation': 'WD_Snodgrass'}), ('IA_Popa', 'WD_Snodgrass', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('D_Wakoski', 'Univers', {'translator': 'Ursu'}), ('D_Wakoski', 'Ursu', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Pound', 'Caraion', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Pound', 'Junimea', {'translator': 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu'}), ('Pound', 'Univers', {'translator': 'Caraion'}), ('Pound', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {'publisher': 'Junimea'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', "F_O'Hara", {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'T_Roethke', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'Univers', {'translation': "F_O'Hara"}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'WS_Merwin', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 'W_Stevens', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Univers', 'Ursu', {'translation': 'D_Wakoski'}), ('Univers', 'WS_Merwin', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'Caraion', {'translation': 'Pound'}), ('Univers', "F_O'Hara", {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'WD_Snodgrass', {'translator': 'IA_Popa'}), ('Univers', 'S_Plath', {'translator': 'Nicolescu'}), ('Univers', 'T_Roethke', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('Univers', 'Nicolescu', {'translation': 'S_Plath'}), ('Univers', 'W_Stevens', {'translator': 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu'}), ('S_Plath', 'Nicolescu', {'publisher': 'Univers'}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'Junimea', {'translation': 'Pound'})] G1's nodes are: [('Albatros', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('TS_Eliot', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Covaci', {'capacity': 'translator'})] G1's edges are: [('Albatros', 'TS_Eliot', {'translator': 'Covaci'}), ('Albatros', 'Covaci', {'translation': 'TS_Eliot'}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Covaci', {'publisher': 'Albatros'})] Clustering for G: OrderedDict([('Albatros', 1.0), ('D_Wakoski', 1.0), ('Nicolescu', 1.0), ('Ursu', 1.0), ('WS_Merwin', 1.0), ('Caraion', 1.0), ("F_O'Hara", 1.0), ('Covaci', 1.0), ('WD_Snodgrass', 1.0), ('S_Plath', 1.0), ('T_Roethke', 1.0), ('TS_Eliot', 1.0), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 1.0), ('IA_Popa', 1.0), ('Junimea', 1.0), ('W_Stevens', 1.0), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.4), ('Pound', 0.(3)), ('Univers', 0.1025)]) Clustering for G0: OrderedDict([('IA_Popa', 1.0), ('D_Wakoski', 1.0), ('Ursu', 1.0), ('WS_Merwin', 1.0), ('Caraion', 1.0), ("F_O'Hara", 1.0), ('WD_Snodgrass', 1.0), ('S_Plath', 1.0), ('T_Roethke', 1.0), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 1.0), ('Nicolescu', 1.0), ('Junimea', 1.0), ('W_Stevens', 1.0), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.4), ('Pound', 0.(3)), ('Univers', 0.1025)]) Clustering for G1: OrderedDict([('Albatros', 1.0), ('TS_Eliot', 1.0), ('Covaci', 1.0)]) CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.5816), ('Pound', 0.1699), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.0196), ('Albatros', 0.0), ('D_Wakoski', 0.0), ('Nicolescu', 0.0), ('Ursu', 0.0), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0), ('Caraion', 0.0), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0), ('Covaci', 0.0), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.0), ('S_Plath', 0.0), ('T_Roethke', 0.0), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.0), ('IA_Popa', 0.0), ('Junimea', 0.0), ('W_Stevens', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.7352), ('Pound', 0.4807), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.4629), ('Caraion', 0.4464), ('D_Wakoski', 0.4166), ('Nicolescu', 0.4166), ('Ursu', 0.4166), ('WS_Merwin', 0.4166), ("F_O'Hara", 0.4166), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.4166), ('S_Plath', 0.4166), ('T_Roethke', 0.4166), ('IA_Popa', 0.4166), ('W_Stevens', 0.4166), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.3205), ('Junimea', 0.3205), ('Albatros', 0.(1)), ('Covaci', 0.(1)), ('TS_Eliot', 0.(1)]) Eigenvector centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.6251), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.3440), ('W_Stevens', 0.2209), ('WS_Merwin', 0.2209), ('T_Roethke', 0.2209), ("F_O'Hara", 0.2209), ('Pound', 0.2151), ('Caraion', 0.1915), ('Ursu', 0.1846095844913992), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.18460958449139916), ('Nicolescu', 0.18460958449139914), ('S_Plath', 0.1846095844913991), ('IA_Popa', 0.18460958449139908), ('D_Wakoski', 0.18460958449139903), ('Junimea', 0.06353916228926411), 347 ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.06353916228926396), ('Albatros', 1.2772805383648288e-16), ('Covaci', 1.0115622362063928e-16), ('TS_Eliot', -4.582892123598854e-17)]) Betweenness centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.8476), ('Pound', 0.2476), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.0285), ('IA_Popa', 0.0), ('D_Wakoski', 0.0), ('Ursu', 0.0), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0), ('Caraion', 0.0), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.0), ('S_Plath', 0.0), ('T_Roethke', 0.0), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.0), ('Nicolescu', 0.0), ('Junimea', 0.0), ('W_Stevens', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G0 OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.8823), ('Pound', 0.5769), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.5555), ('Caraion', 0.5357), ('IA_Popa', 0.5), ('D_Wakoski', 0.5), ('Ursu', 0.5), ('WS_Merwin', 0.5), ("F_O'Hara", 0.5), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.5), ('S_Plath', 0.5), ('T_Roethke', 0.5), ('Nicolescu', 0.5), ('W_Stevens', 0.5), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.3846), ('Junimea', 0.3846)]) Eigenvector centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Univers', 0.6251), ('Abaluta_&_Stoenescu', 0.3440), ('WS_Merwin', 0.2209), ("F_O'Hara", 0.2209), ('T_Roethke', 0.2209), ('W_Stevens', 0.22094), ('Pound', 0.2151), ('Caraion', 0.1915), ('IA_Popa', 0.1846), ('D_Wakoski', 0.1846), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.1846), ('Ursu', 0.1846), ('S_Plath', 0.1846), ('Nicolescu', 0.1846), ('Junimea', 0.0635), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.0635)]) Betweenness centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Albatros', 0.0), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0), ('Covaci', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Albatros', 1.0), ('TS_Eliot', 1.0), ('Covaci', 1.0)]) Eigenvector centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Albatros', 0.5773), ('TS_Eliot', 0.5773), ('Covaci', 0.5773)])) The degrees for all vertices in G are: DegreeView({'Albatros': 2, 'D_Wakoski': 2, 'Pound': 4, 'Nicolescu': 2, 'Abaluta_&_Stoenescu': 5, 'Univers': 13, 'Ursu': 2, 'WS_Merwin': 2, 'Caraion': 2, "F_O'Hara": 2, 'Covaci': 2, 'WD_Snodgrass': 2, 'S_Plath': 2, 'T_Roethke': 2, 'TS_Eliot': 2, 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu': 2, 'IA_Popa': 2, 'Junimea': 2, 'W_Stevens': 2}) 348 Annex 5 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary Canadian Poetry Anthologies Translated before 1989 SIZE, DENSITY, AVERAGE DEGREE AND CLUSTERING G's size: 48 G's density: 0.0531 The number of G's components: 1 The average degree for G: 2.5 The number of edges in G: 60 G's average clustering: 0.0 CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.8663), ('Caraion', 0.2456), ('J.M. Yates', 0.0111), ('Andreas Schroeder', 0.0111), ('Dorothy Livesay', 0.0111), ('Lionel Kearns', 0.0111), ('John Robert Colombo', 0.0111), ('Fred Cogswell', 0.0111), ('Louis Dudek', 0.0111), ('Barbara Caruso', 0.0111), ('Michael Ondaatje', 0.0111), ('Margaret Atwood', 0.0111), ('Irving Layton', 0.0111), ('Tom Marshall', 0.0111), ('Alfred Purdy', 0.0111), ('John Newlove', 0.0111), all other nodes = 0)]) Closeness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.8103), ('J.M. Yates', 0.5108), ('Andreas Schroeder', 0.5108), ('Dorothy Livesay', 0.5108), ('Lionel Kearns', 0.5108), ('John Robert Colombo', 0.5108), ('Fred Cogswell', 0.5108), ('Louis Dudek', 0.5108), ('Barbara Caruso', 0.5108), ('Michael Ondaatje', 0.5108), ('Margaret Atwood', 0.5108), ('Irving Layton', 0.5108), ('Tom Marshall', 0.5108), ('Alfred Purdy', 0.5108), ('John Newlove', 0.5108), ('Caraion', 0.46078431372549017), ('Stanley Cooperman', 0.0.4519), ('Fred Candelaria', 0.0.4519), ('Jay Mcpherson', 0.0.4519), ('Gwendolyn MacEwen', 0.0.4519), ('Pierre Coupey', 0.0.4519), ('Dennis Lee', 0.0.4519), ('Elizabeth Brewster', 0.0.4519), ('Michael Bullock', 0.0.4519), ('Nelson Hall', 0.0.4519), ('Henry Beissel', 0.0.4519), ('Milton Acorn', 0.0.4519), ('Alden Nowlan', 0.0.4519), ('Peter Stevens', 0.0.4519), ('Nicholas Catanoy', 0.0.4519), ('Phyllis Webb', 0.0.4519), ('Miriam Waddington', 0.0.4519), ('Leonard Cohen', 0.0.4519), ('Robin Skelton', 0.0.4519), ('James Reaney', 0.0.4519), ('Patrick Anderson', 0.0.4519), ('George Howering', 0.0.4519), ('Louis Cormier', 0.0.4519), ('Patricia K. Page', 0.0.4519), ('Eidon Grier', 0.0.4519), ('Raymond Souster', 0.0.4519), ('Eli Mandel', 0.0.4519), ('D. G. Jones', 0.0.4519), ('Margaret Avison', 0.3175), ('Alden A. Nowlan', 0.3175), ('R. C. Everson', 0.3175), ('Nelson Ball', 0.3175), ('Ralph Gustafson', 0.3175)]) Eigenvector centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.6359), ('Caraion', 0.3091), ('John Robert Colombo', 0.13666), ('Barbara Caruso', 0.13668789915431856), ('John Newlove', 0.13668789915431856), ('Andreas Schroeder', 0.13668789915431853), ('Dorothy Livesay', 0.13668789915431853), ('Lionel Kearns', 0.13668789915431853), ('Irving Layton', 0.13668789915431853), ('J.M. Yates', 0.1366878991543185), ('Margaret Atwood', 0.1366878991543185), ('Fred Cogswell', 0.13668789915431848), ('Louis Dudek', 0.13668789915431848), ('Tom Marshall', 0.13668789915431848), ('Michael Ondaatje', 0.13668789915431845), ('Alfred Purdy', 0.13668789915431845), ('Stanley Cooperman', 0.09198159807196862), ('Nelson Hall', 0.09198159807196861), ('Leonard Cohen', 0.0919815980719686), ('George Howering', 0.0919815980719686), ('Fred Candelaria', 0.09198159807196858), ('Dennis Lee', 0.09198159807196858), ('Peter Stevens', 0.09198159807196858), ('Louis Cormier', 0.09198159807196858), ('Michael Bullock', 0.09198159807196857), ('Milton Acorn', 0.09198159807196857), ('Phyllis Webb', 0.09198159807196857), ('James Reaney', 0.09198159807196857), ('Jay Mcpherson', 0.09198159807196854), ('Gwendolyn MacEwen', 0.09198159807196854), ('D. G. Jones', 0.09198159807196854), ('Alden Nowlan', 0.09198159807196853), ('Robin Skelton', 0.09198159807196853), ('Nicholas Catanoy', 0.09198159807196851), ('Eidon Grier', 0.09198159807196851), ('Pierre Coupey', 0.0919815980719685), ('Elizabeth Brewster', 0.0919815980719685), ('Patrick Anderson', 0.0919815980719685), ('Patricia K. Page', 0.0919815980719685), ('Henry Beissel', 0.09198159807196848), ('Miriam Waddington', 0.09198159807196848), ('Eli Mandel', 349 0.09198159807196848), ('Raymond Souster', 0.09198159807196844), ('Ralph Gustafson', 0.04470630108235001), ('Margaret Avison', 0.04470630108235), ('Nelson Ball', 0.04470630108234996), ('R. C. Everson', 0.044706301082349936), ('Alden A. Nowlan', 0.04470630108234988)]) The degrees for all vertices in G are: DegreeView({'J.M. Yates': 2, 'Andreas Schroeder': 2, 'Stanley Cooperman': 1, 'Fred Candelaria': 1, 'Jay Mcpherson': 1, 'Margaret Avison': 1, 'Alden A. Nowlan': 1, 'Gwendolyn MacEwen': 1, 'Pierre Coupey': 1, 'Dennis Lee': 1, 'Elizabeth Brewster': 1, 'Dorothy Livesay': 2, 'Michael Bullock': 1, 'Nelson Hall': 1, 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu': 41, 'Henry Beissel': 1, 'Milton Acorn': 1, 'Lionel Kearns': 2, 'John Robert Colombo': 2, 'Alden Nowlan': 1, 'Fred Cogswell': 2, 'Peter Stevens': 1, 'Nicholas Catanoy': 1, 'Phyllis Webb': 1, 'Miriam Waddington': 1, 'Louis Dudek': 2, 'Leonard Cohen': 1, 'Caraion': 19, 'Robin Skelton': 1, 'Barbara Caruso': 2, 'James Reaney': 1, 'Patrick Anderson': 1, 'George Howering': 1, 'R. C. Everson': 1, 'Louis Cormier': 1, 'Nelson Ball': 1, 'Michael Ondaatje': 2, 'Margaret Atwood': 2, 'Irving Layton': 2, 'Patricia K. Page': 1, 'Eidon Grier': 1, 'Raymond Souster': 1, 'Eli Mandel': 1, 'Tom Marshall': 2, 'D. G. Jones': 1, 'Alfred Purdy': 2, 'Ralph Gustafson': 1, 'John Newlove': 2}) 350 Annex 6 – NetworkX Analysis of the Contemporary American Poetry Anthologies Translated before 1989 SIZE, DENSITY, AVERAGE DEGREE AND CLUSTERING The number of G's components: 1 G's average clustering: 0.0 The number of edges in G: 221 The average degree for G: 3.4531 G's size: 128 G's density: 0.0271 G's nodes are: [('E_Field', {}), ('D_Hall', {}), ('R_Lowell', {}), ('Blaga', {}), ('T_McGrath', {}), ('JG_Fletcher', {}), ('L_Hughes', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', {}), ('R_Creeley', {}), ('B_Guest', {}), ('A_Tate', {}), ('K_Koch', {}), ('L_Mueller', {}), ('G_Kinnel', {}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', {}), ('D_Naone', {}), ('E_Roditi', {}), ('XJ_Kennedy', {}), ('AR_Ammons', {}), ('LeRoi_Jones', {}), ('P_Engle', {}), ('M_Sarton', {}), ('WS_Merwin', {}), ('E_Jarrett', {}), ('L_Zukofsky', {}), ('D_Etter', {}), ('N_Willard', {}), ('ee_cummings', {}), ('S_Sandy', {}), ('M_Gold', {}), ('R_Wilbur', {}), ('J_Kerouac', {}), ('M_Strand', {}), ('R_Francis', {}), ('M_Van_Doren', {}), ('E_Bishop', {}), ('J_Ashbery', {}), ('B_Kaufman', {}), ('Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('R_Howard', {}), ('V_Contoski', {}), ('P_Meinke', {}), ('P_Viereck', {}), ('P_Blackburn', {}), ('M_Solomon', {}), ('L_Simpson', {}), ('O_Nash', {}), ('J_Langland', {}), ('CW_Hines', {}), ('L_Untermeyer', {}), ('R_Duncan', {}), ('T_Raworth', {}), ('Winfield_Scott', {}), ('D_Wakoski', {}), ('Ph_Lamantia', {}), ('C_Olson', {}), ('J_Fields', {}), ('K_Rexroth', {}), ('D_Justice', {}), ('M_Zaturenska', {}), ('M_Rukeyser', {}), ('RP_Warren', {}), ('W_Everson', {}), ('A_Bontemps', {}), ('WE_Stafford', {}), ("F_O'Hara", {}), ('M_March', {}), ('R_Jarrell', {}), ('E_Bowers', {}), ('TS_Eliot', {}), ('R_Whittemore', {}), ('L_Bogan', {}), ('C_Aiken', {}), ('J_Berryman', {}), ('K_Patchen', {}), ('S_Kunitz', {}), ('S_Plath', {}), ('K_Shapiro', {}), ('D_Levertov', {}), ('J_Haines', {}), ('D_Hoffman', {}), ('Georgia_D_Johnson', {}), ('J_Wieners', {}), ('A_Rich', {}), ('J_Wright', {}), ('H_Nemerov', {}), ('W_Kees', {}), ('Baconsky', {}), ('A_Raybin', {}), ('J_Laughlin', {}), ('G_Snyder', {}), ('WD_Snodgrass', {}), ('B_Deutsch', {}), ('H_Gregory', {}), ('C_Major', {}), ('D_Schwartz', {}), ('R_Eberhart', {}), ('A_Ginsberg', {}), ('R_Mezey', {}), ('WH_Auden', {}), ('H_Doolittle', {}), ('Sterian', {}), ('C_Kizer', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('G_Corso', {}), ('R_Kelly', {}), ('WJ_Smith', {}), ('G_Brooks', {}), ('JC_Ransom', {}), ('J_Anderson', {}), ('T_Roethke', {}), ('M_Moore', {}), ('Ph_McGinley', {}), ('J_Oppenheimer', {}), ('A_Sexton', {}), ('O_Williams', {}), ('L_Riding', {}), ('Caraion', {}), ('R_Jeffers', {}), ('A_Hecht', {}), ('HJ_Bond', {}), ('J_Unterecker', {}), ('A_Dugan', {}), ('J_Merrill', {}), ('R_Bly', {}), ('Ivanescu', {}), ('W_Cuney', {}), ('J_Dickey', {})] G's edges are: [('E_Field', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('D_Hall', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Lowell', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Lowell', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('R_Lowell', 'Levitchi_&_Dorin', {}), ('Blaga', 'TS_Eliot', {}), ('T_McGrath', 'Levitchi_&_Dorin', {}), ('JG_Fletcher', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Hughes', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Hughes', 'Levitchi_&_Dorin', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'E_Bishop', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Eberhart', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'RP_Warren', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'WH_Auden', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'H_Doolittle', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'WE_Stafford', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Jarrell', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'TS_Eliot', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'M_Moore', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Whittemore', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'L_Bogan', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'G_Corso', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'C_Aiken', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'A_Tate', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'J_Berryman', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'A_Ginsberg', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'WJ_Smith', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'S_Kunitz', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'M_Solomon', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'K_Shapiro', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'O_Nash', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'JC_Ransom', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'S_Plath', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'T_Roethke', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'L_Ferlinghetti', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'L_Untermeyer', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'Ph_McGinley', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'Winfield_Scott', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'B_Deutsch', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'LeRoi_Jones', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'D_Wakoski', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'L_Riding', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'M_Sarton', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'WS_Merwin', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'D_Levertov', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Jeffers', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'J_Wright', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'P_Viereck', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'L_Simpson', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'H_Nemerov', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'ee_cummings', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Bly', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'D_Justice', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Wilbur', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'J_Ashbery', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'G_Snyder', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'WD_Snodgrass', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'R_Francis', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'M_Zaturenska', {}), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'G_Kinnel', {}), 351 ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 'M_Van_Doren', {}), ('R_Creeley', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Creeley', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('B_Guest', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('A_Tate', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Tate', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('K_Koch', 'Caraion', {}), ('K_Koch', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('L_Mueller', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('G_Kinnel', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 'Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('D_Naone', 'Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('E_Roditi', 'Caraion', {}), ('XJ_Kennedy', 'Caraion', {}), ('AR_Ammons', 'Caraion', {}), ('LeRoi_Jones', 'Caraion', {}), ('P_Engle', 'Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('WS_Merwin', 'Caraion', {}), ('WS_Merwin', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('WS_Merwin', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('WS_Merwin', 'Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('E_Jarrett', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Zukofsky', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Etter', 'Caraion', {}), ('N_Willard', 'Caraion', {}), ('ee_cummings', 'Caraion', {}), ('ee_cummings', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('S_Sandy', 'Caraion', {}), ('M_Gold', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Wilbur', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Wilbur', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Kerouac', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('M_Strand', 'Marin_Sorescu', {}), ('E_Bishop', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('J_Ashbery', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('B_Kaufman', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('Marin_Sorescu', 'A_Ginsberg', {}), ('Marin_Sorescu', 'M_March', {}), ('Marin_Sorescu', 'P_Meinke', {}), ('R_Howard', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('V_Contoski', 'Caraion', {}), ('P_Viereck', 'Caraion', {}), ('P_Viereck', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('P_Blackburn', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Simpson', 'Caraion', {}), ('O_Nash', 'Caraion', {}), ('O_Nash', 'Sterian', {}), ('J_Langland', 'Caraion', {}), ('CW_Hines', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Untermeyer', 'Sterian', {}), ('R_Duncan', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Duncan', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('R_Duncan', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('T_Raworth', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('D_Wakoski', 'Caraion', {}), ('Ph_Lamantia', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('C_Olson', 'Caraion', {}), ('C_Olson', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('C_Olson', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('J_Fields', 'Caraion', {}), ('K_Rexroth', 'Caraion', {}), ('K_Rexroth', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('D_Justice', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Justice', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('D_Justice', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('M_Rukeyser', 'Caraion', {}), ('M_Rukeyser', 'Sterian', {}), ('M_Rukeyser', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('RP_Warren', 'Caraion', {}), ('W_Everson', 'Sterian', {}), ('A_Bontemps', 'Caraion', {}), ('WE_Stafford', 'Caraion', {}), ('WE_Stafford', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('WE_Stafford', 'Ivanescu', {}), ("F_O'Hara", 'Caraion', {}), ("F_O'Hara", 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('R_Jarrell', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Jarrell', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('E_Bowers', 'Caraion', {}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Baconsky', {}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('R_Whittemore', 'Caraion', {}), ('L_Bogan', 'Caraion', {}), ('C_Aiken', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Berryman', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Berryman', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('K_Patchen', 'Caraion', {}), ('K_Patchen', 'Sterian', {}), ('K_Patchen', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('S_Kunitz', 'Caraion', {}), ('S_Kunitz', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('S_Plath', 'Caraion', {}), ('S_Plath', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('K_Shapiro', 'Caraion', {}), ('K_Shapiro', 'Sterian', {}), ('D_Levertov', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Levertov', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('D_Levertov', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Haines', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Hoffman', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('Georgia_D_Johnson', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Wieners', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Rich', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Rich', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Wright', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Wright', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('H_Nemerov', 'Caraion', {}), ('H_Nemerov', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('W_Kees', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('A_Raybin', 'Caraion', {}), ('J_Laughlin', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('G_Snyder', 'Caraion', {}), ('G_Snyder', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('G_Snyder', 'Sterian', {}), ('WD_Snodgrass', 'Caraion', {}), ('WD_Snodgrass', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('B_Deutsch', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('H_Gregory', 'Caraion', {}), ('C_Major', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Schwartz', 'Caraion', {}), ('D_Schwartz', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('R_Eberhart', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Ginsberg', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Ginsberg', 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', {}), ('A_Ginsberg', 'Sterian', {}), ('R_Mezey', 'Caraion', {}), ('WH_Auden', 'Caraion', {}), ('Sterian', 'G_Brooks', {}), ('Sterian', 'T_Roethke', {}), ('C_Kizer', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'T_Roethke', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'G_Corso', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'J_Oppenheimer', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'J_Merrill', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'R_Bly', {}), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 'J_Dickey', {}), ('G_Corso', 'Caraion', {}), ('R_Kelly', 'Caraion', {}), ('WJ_Smith', 'Caraion', {}), ('JC_Ransom', 'Caraion', {}), ('JC_Ransom', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Anderson', 'Caraion', {}), ('T_Roethke', 'Caraion', {}), ('M_Moore', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('J_Oppenheimer', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Sexton', 'Caraion', {}), ('A_Sexton', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('O_Williams', 'Caraion', {}), ('Caraion', 'HJ_Bond', {}), ('Caraion', 'A_Hecht', {}), ('Caraion', 'J_Unterecker', {}), ('Caraion', 'W_Cuney', {}), ('Caraion', 'J_Merrill', {}), ('Caraion', 'J_Dickey', {}), ('Caraion', 'R_Bly', {}), ('A_Hecht', 'Ivanescu', {}), ('A_Dugan', 'Ivanescu', {})] CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Caraion', 0.6146), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 0.3031), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.1439), ('Ivanescu', 0.1351), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.0776), ('WS_Merwin', 0.0467), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0418), ('Sterian', 0.0356), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0326), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0322), ('G_Snyder', 0.01296), ('T_Roethke', 0.0129), ('D_Justice', 0.0121), ('WE_Stafford', 0.0121), ('J_Ashbery', 0.0121), ('D_Levertov', 0.0121), ('M_Rukeyser', 0.0092), ('O_Nash', 0.0073), ('K_Shapiro', 0.0073), ('K_Patchen', 0.0067), ('R_Duncan', 0.0066), ('C_Olson', 0.0066), ('P_Viereck', 0.0063), ('J_Wright', 0.0063), 352 ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.0063), ('G_Corso', 0.0063), ('R_Bly', 0.0063), ('R_Lowell', 0.0059), ('A_Tate', 0.0059), ('ee_cummings', 0.0059), ('R_Wilbur', 0.0059), ('R_Jarrell', 0.0059), ('J_Berryman', 0.0059), ('S_Kunitz', 0.0059), ('S_Plath', 0.0059), ('H_Nemerov', 0.0059), ('JC_Ransom', 0.0059), ('A_Rich', 0.0023), ('D_Schwartz', 0.0023), ('A_Sexton', 0.0023), ('A_Hecht', 0.0023), ('L_Hughes', 0.0022), ('G_Kinnel', 0.0022), ('L_Simpson', 0.0022), ('LeRoi_Jones', 0.0022), ('E_Bishop', 0.0022), ('D_Wakoski', 0.0022), ('RP_Warren', 0.0022), ('R_Whittemore', 0.0022), ('L_Bogan', 0.0022), ('R_Eberhart', 0.0022), ('WH_Auden', 0.0022), ('WJ_Smith', 0.0022), ('R_Creeley', 0.0021), ('K_Koch', 0.0021), ('J_Dickey', 0.0021), ('K_Rexroth', 0.0021), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0021), ('J_Oppenheimer', 0.0021), ('J_Merrill', 0.0021), ('B_Deutsch', 0.00199), ('L_Untermeyer', 0.00196), ('C_Aiken', 0.00132), ('M_Moore', 0.00132), all other nodes = 0]) Closeness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Caraion', 0.6047619047619047), ('WS_Merwin', 0.49609375), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.4810), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 0.4774), ('D_Justice', 0.4738), ('WE_Stafford', 0.4738), ('J_Ashbery', 0.4738), ('D_Levertov', 0.4738), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.4703), ('G_Snyder', 0.4601), ('T_Roethke', 0.4601), ('P_Viereck', 0.4503), ('J_Wright', 0.4503), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.4503), ('G_Corso', 0.4503), ('R_Bly', 0.4503), ('R_Lowell', 0.4471), ('A_Tate', 0.4471), ('ee_cummings', 0.4471), ('R_Wilbur', 0.4471), ('R_Jarrell', 0.4471), ('J_Berryman', 0.4471), ('S_Kunitz', 0.4471), ('S_Plath', 0.4471), ('H_Nemerov', 0.4471), ('JC_Ransom', 0.4471), ('O_Nash', 0.4349), ('K_Shapiro', 0.4349), ('R_Duncan', 0.4319), ('C_Olson', 0.4319), ('L_Hughes', 0.4261), ('G_Kinnel', 0.4261), ('L_Simpson', 0.4261), ('LeRoi_Jones', 0.4261), ('E_Bishop', 0.4261), ('D_Wakoski', 0.4261), ('RP_Warren', 0.4261), ('R_Whittemore', 0.4261), ('L_Bogan', 0.4261), ('R_Eberhart', 0.4261), ('WH_Auden', 0.4261), ('WJ_Smith', 0.4261), ('M_Rukeyser', 0.4177), ('K_Patchen', 0.4096), ('A_Rich', 0.4070), ('D_Schwartz', 0.4070), ('A_Sexton', 0.4070), ('A_Hecht', 0.4070), ('Ivanescu', 0.4070), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.4044), ('R_Creeley', 0.3993), ('K_Koch', 0.3993), ('J_Dickey', 0.3993), ('K_Rexroth', 0.3993), ("F_O'Hara", 0.3993), ('J_Oppenheimer', 0.3993), ('J_Merrill', 0.3993), ('D_Hall', 0.3779), ('JG_Fletcher', 0.3779), ('E_Roditi', 0.3779), ('AR_Ammons', 0.3779), ('E_Jarrett', 0.3779), ('L_Zukofsky', 0.3779), ('D_Etter', 0.3779), ('N_Willard', 0.3779), ('S_Sandy', 0.3779), ('V_Contoski', 0.3779), ('P_Blackburn', 0.3779), ('XJ_Kennedy', 0.3779), ('J_Langland', 0.3779), ('CW_Hines', 0.3779), ('J_Fields', 0.3779), ('E_Bowers', 0.3779), ('J_Haines', 0.3779), ('Georgia_D_Johnson', 0.3779), ('J_Wieners', 0.3779), ('A_Raybin', 0.3779), ('H_Gregory', 0.3779), ('C_Major', 0.3779), ('R_Mezey', 0.3779), ('R_Kelly', 0.3779), ('J_Anderson', 0.3779), ('O_Williams', 0.3779), ('HJ_Bond', 0.3779), ('J_Unterecker', 0.3779), ('A_Bontemps', 0.3779), ('W_Cuney', 0.3779), ('M_Gold', 0.3779), ('B_Deutsch', 0.3567), ('Sterian', 0.3547), ('TS_Eliot', 0.3527), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.3508), ('C_Aiken', 0.3489), ('M_Moore', 0.3489), ('L_Untermeyer', 0.3324), ('T_McGrath', 0.3239), ('M_Sarton', 0.3239), ('R_Francis', 0.3239), ('M_Van_Doren', 0.3239), ('M_Solomon', 0.3239), ('Winfield_Scott', 0.3239), ('M_Zaturenska', 0.3239), ('H_Doolittle', 0.3239), ('Ph_McGinley', 0.3239), ('L_Riding', 0.3239), ('R_Jeffers', 0.3239), ('E_Field', 0.2809), ('R_Howard', 0.2809), ('L_Mueller', 0.2809), ('W_Kees', 0.2809), ('C_Kizer', 0.2809), ('A_Dugan', 0.2809), ('B_Guest', 0.2886), ('B_Kaufman', 0.2886), ('J_Kerouac', 0.2886), ('T_Raworth', 0.2886), ('Ph_Lamantia', 0.2886), ('D_Hoffman', 0.2886), ('J_Laughlin', 0.2886), ('W_Everson', 0.2623), ('G_Brooks', 0.2623), ('Blaga', 0.2613), ('Baconsky', 0.2613), ('M_March', 0.2602), ('D_Naone', 0.2602), ('P_Engle', 0.2602), ('P_Meinke', 0.2602), ('M_Strand', 0.2602)]) Eigenvector centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Caraion', 0.5290), ('Levitchi_&_Dorin', 0.3644), ('Teodorescu_&_Negosanu', 0.2055), ('Ivanescu', 0.2017), ('WS_Merwin', 0.1171), ('WE_Stafford', 0.1146), ('J_Ashbery', 0.1146), ('D_Levertov', 0.1146), ('D_Justice', 0.11460), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.1045), ('T_Roethke', 0.1019), ('G_Snyder', 0.1019), ('L_Ferlinghetti', 0.0994), ('R_Bly', 0.0968), ('J_Wright', 0.0968), ('WD_Snodgrass', 0.0968), ('G_Corso', 0.0968), ('P_Viereck', 0.0968), ('R_Jarrell', 0.0964), ('R_Wilbur', 0.09649774261370567), ('J_Berryman', 0.09649774261370567), ('A_Tate', 0.09649774261370565), ('S_Kunitz', 0.09649774261370565), ('JC_Ransom', 0.09649774261370565), ('H_Nemerov', 0.09649774261370564), ('S_Plath', 0.09649774261370563), ('R_Lowell', 0.09649774261370561), ('ee_cummings', 0.0964977426137056), ('O_Nash', 0.0838717379497507), ('K_Shapiro', 0.08387173794975065), ('C_Olson', 0.08249726872453911), ('R_Duncan', 0.0824972687245391), ('G_Kinnel', 0.07872334598270926), ('RP_Warren', 0.07872334598270926), ('WH_Auden', 0.07872334598270923), ('L_Simpson', 0.07872334598270922), ('LeRoi_Jones', 0.07872334598270922), ('R_Whittemore', 0.07872334598270922), ('L_Bogan', 0.07872334598270922), ('L_Hughes', 0.0787233459827092), ('E_Bishop', 0.0787233459827092), ('D_Wakoski', 0.0787233459827092), ('R_Eberhart', 0.0787233459827092), ('WJ_Smith', 0.0787233459827092), ('K_Patchen', 0.0698712640605841), ('M_Rukeyser', 0.06953867897890635), 353 ('J_Oppenheimer', 0.06472287209354272), ('K_Koch', 0.0647228720935427), ("F_O'Hara", 0.0647228720935427), ('J_Merrill', 0.06472287209354269), ('R_Creeley', 0.06472287209354266), ('K_Rexroth', 0.06472287209354266), ('J_Dickey', 0.06472287209354265), ('D_Schwartz', 0.06439028701186493), ('A_Rich', 0.06439028701186492), ('A_Sexton', 0.06439028701186492), ('A_Hecht', 0.06439028701186487), ('Sterian', 0.05843457727759618), ('TS_Eliot', 0.050668483668664076), ('B_Deutsch', 0.05021443731451494), ('C_Aiken', 0.04988185223283722), ('M_Moore', 0.04988185223283718), ('CW_Hines', 0.04661589038086852), ('J_Unterecker', 0.04661589038086852), ('JG_Fletcher', 0.046615890380868504), ('L_Zukofsky', 0.046615890380868504), ('H_Gregory', 0.0466158903808685), ('R_Kelly', 0.0466158903808685), ('A_Bontemps', 0.04661589038086849), ('W_Cuney', 0.04661589038086849), ('AR_Ammons', 0.04661589038086848), ('S_Sandy', 0.04661589038086848), ('XJ_Kennedy', 0.04661589038086848), ('J_Langland', 0.04661589038086848), ('J_Fields', 0.04661589038086848), ('J_Wieners', 0.04661589038086848), ('A_Raybin', 0.04661589038086848), ('C_Major', 0.04661589038086848), ('O_Williams', 0.04661589038086848), ('D_Hall', 0.046615890380868476), ('E_Roditi', 0.046615890380868476), ('N_Willard', 0.046615890380868476), ('V_Contoski', 0.046615890380868476), ('E_Bowers', 0.046615890380868476), ('J_Haines', 0.046615890380868476), ('Georgia_D_Johnson', 0.046615890380868476), ('E_Jarrett', 0.04661589038086847), ('D_Etter', 0.04661589038086847), ('R_Mezey', 0.04661589038086847), ('J_Anderson', 0.04661589038086847), ('P_Blackburn', 0.04661589038086846), ('M_Gold', 0.04661589038086846), ('HJ_Bond', 0.046615890380868455), ('L_Untermeyer', 0.03725584756888221), ('H_Doolittle', 0.03210745560184079), ('L_Riding', 0.03210745560184079), ('Winfield_Scott', 0.03210745560184076), ('R_Francis', 0.03210745560184075), ('T_McGrath', 0.032107455601840744), ('M_Sarton', 0.032107455601840744), ('M_Zaturenska', 0.032107455601840744), ('Ph_McGinley', 0.03210745560184074), ('R_Jeffers', 0.03210745560184074), ('M_Van_Doren', 0.03210745560184073), ('M_Solomon', 0.03210745560184073), ('Marin_Sorescu', 0.029441732012630013), ('B_Guest', 0.018106981712674216), ('Ph_Lamantia', 0.018106981712674216), ('B_Kaufman', 0.018106981712674202), ('J_Kerouac', 0.018106981712674202), ('T_Raworth', 0.018106981712674195), ('D_Hoffman', 0.018106981712674185), ('J_Laughlin', 0.018106981712674178), ('R_Howard', 0.01777439663099646), ('L_Mueller', 0.01777439663099645), ('C_Kizer', 0.017774396630996437), ('A_Dugan', 0.017774396630996437), ('W_Kees', 0.01777439663099643), ('E_Field', 0.017774396630996427), ('W_Everson', 0.005148391967041429), ('G_Brooks', 0.005148391967041428), ('Baconsky', 0.004464158490660197), ('Blaga', 0.004464158490660186), ('M_March', 0.0025939706189631916), ('M_Strand', 0.002593970618963191), ('P_Engle', 0.00259397061896319), ('D_Naone', 0.0025939706189631695), ('P_Meinke', 0.0025939706189631686)]) The degrees for all vertices in G are: DegreeView({'E_Field': 1, 'D_Hall': 1, 'R_Lowell': 3, 'Blaga': 1, 'T_McGrath': 1, 'JG_Fletcher': 1, 'L_Hughes': 2, 'Levitchi_&_Dorin': 54, 'R_Creeley': 2, 'B_Guest': 1, 'A_Tate': 3, 'K_Koch': 2, 'M_March': 1, 'G_Kinnel': 2, 'L_Ferlinghetti': 4, 'D_Naone': 1, 'E_Roditi': 1, 'L_Simpson': 2, 'AR_Ammons': 1, 'LeRoi_Jones': 2, 'P_Engle': 1, 'M_Sarton': 1, 'WS_Merwin': 5, 'E_Jarrett': 1, 'L_Zukofsky': 1, 'D_Etter': 1, 'N_Willard': 1, 'ee_cummings': 3, 'S_Sandy': 1, 'R_Wilbur': 3, 'P_Meinke': 1, 'Baconsky': 1, 'R_Francis': 1, 'M_Van_Doren': 1, 'E_Bishop': 2, 'R_Jarrell': 3, 'B_Kaufman': 1, 'Marin_Sorescu': 8, 'R_Howard': 1, 'V_Contoski': 1, 'J_Kerouac': 1, 'P_Viereck': 3, 'P_Blackburn': 1, 'M_Solomon': 1, 'XJ_Kennedy': 1, 'O_Nash': 3, 'J_Langland': 1, 'CW_Hines': 1, 'L_Untermeyer': 2, 'R_Duncan': 3, 'T_Raworth': 1, 'Winfield_Scott': 1, 'D_Wakoski': 2, 'Ph_Lamantia': 1, 'J_Dickey': 2, 'C_Olson': 3, 'J_Fields': 1, 'K_Rexroth': 2, 'D_Justice': 4, 'M_Zaturenska': 1, 'M_Rukeyser': 3, 'RP_Warren': 2, 'W_Everson': 1, 'WE_Stafford': 4, "F_O'Hara": 2, 'L_Mueller': 1, 'J_Ashbery': 4, 'E_Bowers': 1, 'TS_Eliot': 4, 'R_Whittemore': 2, 'L_Bogan': 2, 'C_Aiken': 2, 'J_Berryman': 3, 'K_Patchen': 3, 'S_Kunitz': 3, 'S_Plath': 3, 'K_Shapiro': 3, 'D_Levertov': 4, 'J_Haines': 1, 'D_Hoffman': 1, 'Georgia_D_Johnson': 1, 'J_Wieners': 1, 'A_Rich': 2, 'J_Wright': 3, 'H_Nemerov': 3, 'W_Kees': 1, 'M_Strand': 1, 'A_Raybin': 1, 'J_Laughlin': 1, 'Sterian': 10, 'WD_Snodgrass': 3, 'B_Deutsch': 2, 'H_Gregory': 1, 'C_Major': 1, 'D_Schwartz': 2, 'R_Eberhart': 2, 'A_Ginsberg': 5, 'R_Mezey': 1, 'WH_Auden': 2, 'H_Doolittle': 1, 'G_Snyder': 4, 'C_Kizer': 1, 'Teodorescu_&_Negosanu': 32, 'G_Corso': 3, 'R_Kelly': 1, 'WJ_Smith': 2, 'G_Brooks': 1, 'JC_Ransom': 3, 'J_Anderson': 1, 'T_Roethke': 4, 'M_Moore': 2, 'Ph_McGinley': 1, 'J_Oppenheimer': 2, 'A_Sexton': 2, 'O_Williams': 1, 'L_Riding': 1, 'Caraion': 84, 'R_Jeffers': 1, 'A_Hecht': 2, 'HJ_Bond': 1, 'J_Unterecker': 1, 'A_Dugan': 1, 'J_Merrill': 2, 'R_Bly': 3, 'Ivanescu': 31, 'A_Bontemps': 1, 'W_Cuney': 1, 'M_Gold': 1}) 354 Annex 7 – NetworkX Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Contemporary Poetry Author-Collections Translated between 1990 and 2017 Morrison, Jim. 1995/1997. O rugă americană și alte scrieri (An American Prayer and Other Writings) (Virgilia and Mara Popa, Trans.). Chișinău; Ploiești: Quo Vadis? Press; Cartea de nisip; Karmat Press. Codrescu, Andrei. 1997. Candoare străină: Poeme alese, 1970-1996 (Alien Candor: Selected Poems, 1970‐1996) (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.). București: Editura Fundației Culturale Române. Codrescu, Andrei. 2000. Selected Poetry. Poezii alese (Ioana Ieronim, Trans.). Pitești: Paralela 45. Eliot, T. S. 2000. Țara pustie (The Wasteland) (Ion Pillat, Aurel Covaci, Trans.). București: Cartea românească. Simic, Charles. 2002. Cartea zeilor şi a demonilor (The Book of Gods and Demons) (Mircea Cărtărescu, Trans.). Pitești: Paralela 45. Eliot, T. S. 2004. The Waste Land (Alex Moldovan, Trans.). Pitești: Paralela 45. Gritsman, Andrey. 2004. In Transit (Doris Sângeorzan, Trans.). Craiova: Scrisul românesc. Cohen, Leonard. 2006. Cartea aleanului (Book of Longing) (Cristina Chevereșan and Șerban Foarță, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. Clarke, George Elliott. 2006. Poeme incendiare (Flavia Cosma, Trans.) Oradea: Cogito Kaminsky, Ilya. 2007. Dansând în Odessa (Dancing in Odessa). (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). București: Vinea. Bukowski, Charles. 2007. Dragostea e un cîine venit din iad. 61 de poeme erotice (Love is A Dog from Hell. 61 Erotic Poems) (Dan Sociu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. Baker, David. 2009. Omul alchimic (Alchemical Man. Selected Poems). (Chris Tanasescu, Trans.). București: Vinea. Foster, Edward. 2009. Febra albă. Poeme alese (Alexandra Carides and Carmen Firan, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc. Ginsberg, Allen. 2010. Howl și alte poeme. (Howl and Other Poems.) (Domnica Drumea and Petru Ilieşu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. Mindock, Gloria. 2010. La portile raiului (At Heaven’s Doors) (Flavia Cosma, Trans.). Iași: Ars Longa Press. Milazzo, Richard. 2010. Umbre din Est/Eastern Shadows (Adrian Sângeorzan, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc; Cummings, E. E. 2011. Poeme erotice (Erotic Poems) (Dan Sociu, Trans.): București: Art. Eliot, T. S. 2011. Opere poetice. 1909-1962 (Selected Poems (1909-1962)) (Mircea Ivănescu et. al., Trans.). București: Humanitas Fiction. Dylan, Bob. 2012. Suflare în vânt (Blowing in the Wind) (Mircea Cărtărescu, Trans.). București: Humanitas Fiction. Plath, Sylvia. 2012. Poeme alese (Selected Poems). (Elena Ciobanu, Trans.) Ploiești: Paralela 45. Milazzo, Richard. 2012. Acolo unde îngerii îşi arcuiesc spatele şi câinii sunt în trecere/Where Angels Arch Their Backs and Dogs Pass Through (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.). Craiova: Editura Scrisul românesc. 355 Rothenberg, Jerome. 2013. Mistici, hoți și nebuni (Mystics, Thieves and Madmen). (Raluca & Chris Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans,). Bistrița: Max Blecher. Berryman, John. 2013. Cântece vis (Dream Songs) (Radu Vancu, Trans.). Bistrița: Max Blecher. Kleefeld, Carolyn Mary. 2014. The Divine Kiss. Sărut divin. Ioan Nistor. În flăcările păpădiilor/In the Flames of Dandelions. Cluj-Napoca: Limes. Bennett, Maria. 2014. Because you Love / Fiindcă iubeşti. Mircea Petean. Din poemele Anei / From the Poems of Ana (Olimpia Iacob & Maria Bennett, Trans. from the Romanian; Olimpia Iacob, Trans. from the English. Cluj-Napoca: Limes. Stanley H. Barkan; Daniel Corbu. 2014. The Machine for Inventing Ideals / Maşina de inventat idealuri (Olimpia Iacob & Jim Kacian, Trans. From the Romanian; Olimpia Iacob, Trans. From the English). Iași: Princeps Multimedia. Mayne, Seymour. 2014. Caligrafomanție / Augural Calligraphies. (Raluca & Chris Tanasescu (MARGENTO), Trans.). București: Tracus Arte. Hirsch, Edward. 2014. Foc nocturn (Răzvan Hotăranu, Trans.). Craiova: Scrisul românesc. Vincenz, Marc. 2015. Fabrica de propagandă sau apropo de copaci (The Propaganda Factory) (Marius Surleac, Trans.). București : Tracus Arte. Novăcescu, Constantin and Kacian, Jim. 2016. O linişte stranie / Strange Silence (Olimpia Iacob & Jim Kacian, Trans. from the Romanian; Olimpia Iacob, Trans. from the English). Timişoara: Waldpress. Tâlvescu, Dumitru and Cook, Rebecca. 2016. Umbra apei / The Shadow of Water (Olimpia Iacob & Rebecca Cook, Trans. from the Romanian; Olimpia Iacob, Trans. from the English). Deva: Emia, Nistor, Ioan and Wolak, Bill. 2016. Seminţe căutătoare de vânt / Wind-Seeking Seeds (Olimpia Iacob, Trans. from the English; Olimpia Iacob & Bill Wolak, Trans. from the Romanian). Satu-Mare: Citadela. Hirsch, Edward. 2017. Focul viu. Poeme vechi și noi. 1975-2010 (Al. B. Stănescu, Trans.). Iași: Polirom. G's nodes are: [('A_Ginsberg', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Cogito', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('A_Gritsman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('GE_Clarke', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('CM_Kleefeld', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('S_Mayne', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('TS_Eliot', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('SH_Barkan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Morrison', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Citadela', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Polirom', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('I_Kaminsky', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Berryman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Cohen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Emia', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Cartea_romaneasca', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('S_Plath', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('G_Mindock', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Milazzo', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('R_Cook', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Limes', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Humanitas', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Paralela_45', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('E_Foster', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('B_Wolak', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('J_Rothenberg', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Cartea_de_nisip', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('A_Codrescu', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Waldpress', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Art', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('B_Dylan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Vinea', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('M_Bennett', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Bukowski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Simic', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('ee_cummings', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Hirsch', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Princeps_Multimedia', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('J_Kacian', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Vincenz', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Max_Blecher', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Tracus_Arte', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('D_Baker', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Ars_Longa', {'capacity': 'publisher'})] 356 G's edges are: [('A_Ginsberg', 'Polirom', {'translator': 'Polirom', 'weight': 1}), ('Cogito', 'GE_Clarke', {'translator': 'Cosma', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Gritsman', 'Scrisul_romanesc', {'translator': 'Sangeorzan', 'weight': 1}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 'R_Milazzo', {'translator': 'Sangeorzan_&_Hotaranu', 'weight': 2}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 'E_Hirsch', {'translator': 'Hotaranu', 'weight': 1}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 'E_Foster', {'translator': 'Carides_&_Firan', 'weight': 1}), ('CM_Kleefeld', 'Limes', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 2}), ('S_Mayne', 'Tracus_Arte', {'translator': 'Raluca_Tanasescu_&_Chris_Tanasescu', 'weight': 1}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Cartea_romaneasca', {'translator': 'Covaci_&_Pillat', 'weight': 1}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Humanitas', {'translator': 'Foarta_&_Marculescu_&_Racovita_&_Ivanescu', 'weight': 1}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Paralela_45', {'translator': 'Moldovan', 'weight': 1}), ('SH_Barkan', 'Princeps_Multimedia', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Morrison', 'Cartea_de_nisip', {'translator': 'V_Popa_&_M_Popa', 'weight': 1}), ('Citadela', 'B_Wolak', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1}), ('Polirom', 'E_Hirsch', {'translator': 'Stanescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Polirom', 'C_Bukowski', {'translator': 'Sociu', 'weight': 1}), ('Polirom', 'L_Cohen', {'translator': 'Cartarescu_&_(Foarta_&_Cheveresan)', 'weight': 2}), ('I_Kaminsky', 'Vinea', {'translator': 'Chris_Tanasescu', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Berryman', 'Max_Blecher', {'translator': 'Vancu', 'weight': 1}), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 'A_Codrescu', {'translator': 'Ieronim', 'weight': 1}), ('Emia', 'R_Cook', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Plath', 'Paralela_45', {'translator': 'Ciobanu', 'weight': 1}), ('G_Mindock', 'Ars_Longa', {'translator': 'Cosma', 'weight': 1}), ('Limes', 'M_Bennett', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1}), ('Humanitas', 'B_Dylan', {'translator': 'Cartarescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Paralela_45', 'C_Simic', {'translator': 'Cartarescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Paralela_45', 'A_Codrescu', {'translator': 'Ieronim', 'weight': 1}), ('J_Rothenberg', 'Max_Blecher', {'translator': 'Raluca_Tanasescu_&_Chris_Tanasescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Waldpress', 'J_Kacian', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1}), ('Art', 'ee_cummings', {'translator': 'Sociu', 'weight': 1}), ('Vinea', 'D_Baker', {'translator': 'Chris_Tanasescu', 'weight': 1}), ('M_Vincenz', 'Tracus_Arte', {'translator': 'Surleac', 'weight': 1})] SIZE The number of G's components: 14 G's size: 46 The number of edges in G: 32 G0's size: 9 The number of edges in G0: 8 G1's size: 9 The number of edges in G1: 8 G2's size: 3 The number of edges in G2: 2 DEGREE The average degree for G: 1.3913 G's weighted average degree: 1.3913 The average degree for G0: 1.(7) G0's weighted average degree: 2.2222 G1's average degree: 1.(7) G1's weighted average degree: 1.(7) G2's average degree: 1.(3) G2's weighted average degree: 2.0) DENSITY G's density: 0.0309 G1's density: 0.(2) G0's density: 0.(2) G2's density: 0.(6) G0's nodes are: [('R_Milazzo', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('C_Bukowski', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Ginsberg', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Hirsch', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('E_Foster', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('L_Cohen', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('A_Gritsman', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Polirom', {'capacity': 'publisher'})] G0's edges are: [('R_Milazzo', 'Scrisul_romanesc', {'translator': 'Sangeorzan_&_Hotaranu', 'weight': 2}), ('C_Bukowski', 'Polirom', {'translator': 'Sociu', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Ginsberg', 'Polirom', {'translator': 'Polirom', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Hirsch', 357 'Scrisul_romanesc', {'translator': 'Hotaranu', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Hirsch', 'Polirom', {'translator': 'Stanescu', 'weight': 1}), ('E_Foster', 'Scrisul_romanesc', {'translator': 'Carides_&_Firan', 'weight': 1}), ('L_Cohen', 'Polirom', {'translator': 'Cartarescu_&_(Foarta_&_Cheveresan)', 'weight': 2}), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 'A_Gritsman', {'translator': 'Sangeorzan', 'weight': 1})] G1's nodes are: [('C_Simic', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('Cartea_romaneasca', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('S_Plath', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('A_Codrescu', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Paralela_45', {'capacity': 'publisher'}), ('B_Dylan', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('TS_Eliot', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Humanitas', {'capacity': 'publisher'})] G1's edges are: [('C_Simic', 'Paralela_45', {'translator': 'Cartarescu', 'weight': 1}), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 'A_Codrescu', {'translator': 'Ieronim', 'weight': 1}), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 'TS_Eliot', {'translator': 'Covaci_&_Pillat', 'weight': 1}), ('S_Plath', 'Paralela_45', {'translator': 'Ciobanu', 'weight': 1}), ('A_Codrescu', 'Paralela_45', {'translator': 'Ieronim', 'weight': 1}), ('Paralela_45', 'TS_Eliot', {'translator': 'Moldovan', 'weight': 1}), ('B_Dylan', 'Humanitas', {'translator': 'Cartarescu', 'weight': 1}), ('TS_Eliot', 'Humanitas', {'translator': 'Foarta_&_Marculescu_&_Racovita_&_Ivanescu', 'weight': 1})] G2's nodes are: [('CM_Kleefeld', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('M_Bennett', {'capacity': 'author'}), ('Limes', {'capacity': 'publisher'})] G2's edges are: [('CM_Kleefeld', 'Limes', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 2}), ('M_Bennett', 'Limes', {'translator': 'Iacob', 'weight': 1})] G's average clustering: 0.0 G0's average clustering: 0.0 G1's average clustering: 0.0 G2's average clustering: 0.0 CENTRALITY Betweenness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.0212), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 0.0181), ('Polirom', 0.0181), ('TS_Eliot', 0.0171), ('E_Hirsch', 0.0161), ('Humanitas', 0.0070), ('A_Codrescu', 0.0070), ('Limes', 0.0010), ('Vinea', 0.0010), ('Max_Blecher', 0.0010), ('Tracus_Arte', 0.0010), all other nodes = 0.0]) Closeness centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.1094), ('TS_Eliot', 0.1015), ('E_Hirsch', 0.1015), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 0.0948), ('Polirom', 0.0948), ('A_Codrescu', 0.0790), ('Humanitas', 0.0748), ('S_Plath', 0.0711), ('C_Simic', 0.07111), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 0.0677), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0646), ('A_Gritsman', 0.0646), ('L_Cohen', 0.0646), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0646), ('E_Foster', 0.06464), ('C_Bukowski', 0.0646), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 0.05688), ('B_Dylan', 0.0547), ('Limes', 0.0444), ('Vinea', 0.0444), ('Max_Blecher', 0.04444), ('Tracus_Arte', 0.04444), ('D_Baker', 0.0296), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.0296), ('S_Mayne', 0.0296), ('I_Kaminsky', 0.0296), ('J_Berryman', 0.0296), ('M_Bennett', 0.0296), ('J_Rothenberg', 0.0296), ('M_Vincenz', 0.0296), ('Cogito', 0.0222), ('GE_Clarke', 0.0222), ('J_Morrison', 0.0222), ('Citadela', 0.0222), ('G_Mindock', 0.0222), ('R_Cook', 0.0222), ('Emia', 0.0222), ('B_Wolak', 0.0222), ('Cartea_de_nisip', 0.0222), ('Waldpress', 0.0222), ('SH_Barkan', 0.0222), ('Art', 0.0222), ('ee_cummings', 0.0222), ('Princeps_Multimedia', 0.0222), ('J_Kacian', 0.0222), ('Ars_Longa', 0.0222)]) 358 Eigenvector centrality for G: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.6005), ('TS_Eliot', 0.4815), ('A_Codrescu', 0.3332), ('C_Simic', 0.2672), ('S_Plath', 0.2672), ('Humanitas', 0.2672), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 0.2143), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 0.1483), ('B_Dylan', 0.1189), ('Limes', 3.3694e-16), ('CM_Kleefeld', 2.6181e-16), ('M_Bennett', 2.2663e-16), ('Max_Blecher', 1.606e-16), ('J_Berryman', 1.5043e-16), ('J_Rothenberg', 1.1607e-16), ('Emia', 3.9499e-17), ('Citadela', 3.4826e-17), ('R_Cook', 2.9062e-17), ('B_Wolak', 2.723e-17), ('G_Mindock', 2.6790e-17), ('ee_cummings', 1.1788e-17), ('GE_Clarke', 9.0253e- 18), ('Ars_Longa', 7.470e-18), ('Cogito', 4.5094e-18), ('D_Baker', -5.3809e-19), ('Art', -8.5407e-18), ('J_Kacian', -1.5133e- 17), ('SH_Barkan', -2.6675e-17), ('J_Morrison', -3.5745e-17), ('Cartea_de_nisip', -4.2686e-17), ('Princeps_Multimedia', - 5.1257e-17), ('Waldpress', -6.8806e-17), ('Vinea', -8.8241e-17), ('I_Kaminsky', -1.4745e-16), ('S_Mayne', -3.3695e-16), ('M_Vincenz', -3.9284e-16), ('Tracus_Arte', -5.4051e-16), ('E_Foster', -6.0199e-14), ('R_Milazzo', -6.035e-14), ('A_Gritsman', -6.0435e-14), ('A_Ginsberg', -6.0796e-14), ('C_Bukowski', -6.0819e-14), ('L_Cohen', -6.0879e-14), ('E_Hirsch', -1.2113e-13), ('Scrisul_romanesc', -1.3392e-13), ('Polirom', -1.3509e-13)]) Betweenness centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Polirom', 0.6428), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 0.64285), ('E_Hirsch', 0.57142), ('R_Milazzo', 0.0), ('C_Bukowski', 0.0), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.0), ('L_Cohen', 0.0), ('E_Foster', 0.0), ('A_Gritsman', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('E_Hirsch', 0.5714), ('Polirom', 0.5(3)), ('Scrisul_romanesc', 0.5(3)), ('R_Milazzo', 0.3636), ('C_Bukowski', 0.3636), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.3636), ('L_Cohen', 0.3636), ('E_Foster', 0.3636), ('A_Gritsman', 0.3636)]) EigenVector centrality for G0: OrderedDict([('Scrisul_romanesc', 0.4999), ('Polirom', 0.4999), ('E_Hirsch', 0.4472), ('R_Milazzo', 0.2236), ('C_Bukowski', 0.2236), ('A_Ginsberg', 0.2236), ('L_Cohen', 0.2236), ('E_Foster', 0.2236), ('A_Gritsman', 0.2236)]) Betweenness centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.75), ('TS_Eliot', 0.6071), ('Humanitas', 0.25), ('A_Codrescu', 0.25), ('C_Simic', 0.0), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 0.0), ('S_Plath', 0.0), ('B_Dylan', 0.0), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.6153), ('TS_Eliot', 0.5714), ('A_Codrescu', 0.(4)), ('Humanitas', 0.4210), ('C_Simic', 0.4), ('S_Plath', 0.4), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 0.3809), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 0.32), ('B_Dylan', 0.3076)]) Eigenvector centrality for G1: OrderedDict([('Paralela_45', 0.6005), ('TS_Eliot', 0.4815), ('A_Codrescu', 0.3332), ('Humanitas', 0.2672), ('C_Simic', 0.2672), ('S_Plath', 0.2672), ('Cartea_romaneasca', 0.2143), ('Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane', 0.1483), ('B_Dylan', 0.1189)]) Betweenness centrality for G2: OrderedDict([('Limes', 1.0), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.0), ('M_Bennett', 0.0)]) Closeness centrality for G2: OrderedDict([('Limes', 1.0), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.(6)), ('M_Bennett', 0.(6))]) 359 Eigenvector centrality for G2: OrderedDict([('Limes', 0.7071), ('CM_Kleefeld', 0.5), ('M_Bennett', 0.5)]) The degrees for all vertices in G are: DegreeView({'A_Ginsberg': 1, 'D_Baker': 1, 'Cogito': 1, 'A_Gritsman': 1, 'Scrisul_romanesc': 4, 'GE_Clarke': 1, 'CM_Kleefeld': 1, 'S_Mayne': 1, 'Polirom': 4, 'Humanitas': 2, 'J_Morrison': 1, 'Citadela': 1, 'TS_Eliot': 3, 'I_Kaminsky': 1, 'J_Berryman': 1, 'L_Cohen': 1, 'M_Bennett': 1, 'Cartea_romaneasca': 1, 'S_Plath': 1, 'G_Mindock': 1, 'R_Milazzo': 1, 'R_Cook': 1, 'Limes': 2, 'Emia': 1, 'E_Foster': 1, 'B_Wolak': 1, 'J_Rothenberg': 1, 'Cartea_de_nisip': 1, 'A_Codrescu': 2, 'Waldpress': 1, 'C_Simic': 1, 'SH_Barkan': 1, 'Vinea': 2, 'Editura_Fundatiei_Culturale_Romane': 1, 'C_Bukowski': 1, 'Art': 1, 'ee_cummings': 1, 'B_Dylan': 1, 'E_Hirsch': 2, 'Princeps_Multimedia': 1, 'J_Kacian': 1, 'M_Vincenz': 1, 'Max_Blecher': 2, 'Tracus_Arte': 2, 'Paralela_45': 4, 'Ars_Longa': 1})