Textual Resistance

Speaking of textual resistance, Cronin distinguishes between two forms – what he terms as “macaronic subversion” and “attributive subversion” (39 – 40). There was a practice of writing political macaronic verse in 18th century Ireland, where the poem in English was innocent of any subversive connotations but the Irish translation was radically the opposite. The English who had no knowledge of Irish could not conceive of its subversive potential. Sometimes the practice was also made more complicated by making every alternate line of the translated verse forming a coherent subversive message. Of course, this sort of macaronic subversion could survive only on the knowledge that the British knew no Irish.

The other effective strategy of resistance was one of attributive subversion. This was to translate a text and attribute subversive elements, if any, to the original and wash your hands off whatever problem the text might contain. Cronin gives an example of a poem called “Sheelagh Bull” which was published in 1799 in a leading Dublin magazine. It was very critical of British imperialism, but the translator sought to exonerate himself from any possible blame by claiming that it was a translation of a German poem written by the famous author Bürger.

Pasternak can be thought of having used the same strategy when he was translating Shakespeare. Once when he was called to speak at a public meeting, he refused to speak other than mention Shakespeare’s sonnet #32. The theme of this sonnet was the invincibility of the artist even in the face of death. To an audience that knew of writers’ persecution under Stalin, this was a clear subversive message that art will triumph over the most rigorous of controls.