Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Akhmatova in English


Nathan Altman: Portrait of Anna Akhmatova (1914)


In the early 1900s, St Petersburg was one of the most exciting cultural centres on Earth. There were Acmeists, Anarchists, Futurists, Symbolists and a slew of other cliques and coteries all fighting it out in the journals and and poetry readings, in the art galleries and concert halls.

Musicians such as Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, and Stravinsky; artists such as Chagall, Kandinsky, and Malevich rubbed shoulders with Symbolist writers such as Innokenty Annensky, Andrei Bely and Alexander Blok.


El Lissitzky: Red Wedge (1919)


A new era of poetic expression was succeeding to the grand prose tradition of Russian literature: Gogol, Dostoyevsky, and Turgenev were all long dead; only Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Gorky were still left standing. Women's voices, too, were beginning to be heard more insistently: painters such as Natalia Goncharova and poets such as Anna Akhmatova and Marina Tsvetayeva were redefining what Modernity could be.


Natalia Goncharova: Велосипедист [Cyclist] (1913)


Akhmatova, in particular, achieved early success with her terse, jewel-like lyric poems encapsulating moments of emotional tension between men and women in the glittering world of upperclass Russia. Far from being a proponent of freeing up the constraints of formal versification, though, she believed in the importance of poetic craft over mystical inspiration.

Together with a small group of other writers, including her husband Nikolai Gumilev and the young Osip Mandelstam, she formed the Guild of Poets, which subsequently became the anti-Symbolist (and anti-Futurist) Acmeist movement.



Then came the First World War, and the Revolution, and the Civil War. Ronald Hingley's harrowing account of the intertwined lives of four of the greatest Russian poets of the twentieth century - Akhmatova, Mandelstam, Pasternak, and Tsvetayeva - charts the turbulent lives of these supreme individualists in an era of political repression, punctuated by famines, massacres, and periodic violent purges of traitors and (so-called) 'internal émigrés.'



By 1960, when Boris Pasternak died, Akhmatova found herself the last one left standing. Her first husband Nikolai Gumilev was shot by the Soviet Cheka in 1921; Alexander Blok died that same year of scurvy (caused by near-starvation); Vladimir Mayakovsky, the great poet of the Revolution, shot himself in despair in 1930; Osip Mandelstam was sent into exile, then died in a Labour Camp in 1938; Marina Tsvetayeva returned from abroad at the outbreak of war in 1939, but was sent into exile rather than receiving the welcome she'd been promised - she hanged herself in 1941; Pasternak himself, the great survivor, was expelled from the Union of Soviet Writers in 1958 for the crime of allowing his novel Doctor Zhivago to be published in the West. He died shortly afterwards at his dacha in Peredelkino.



Akhmatova herself, after relentless persecution in the 1940s and 50s, was gradually rehabilitated by the Khrushchev regime. Her work began to appear in print again, and she was even permitted to travel abroad to Sicily and England in 1965. She died shortly afterwards of a heart attack. Thousands attended her funeral.

The Russian-born philosopher Isaiah Berlin, whose impromptu visit to Akhmatova in 1945 was used as a pretext by the Soviet authorities to denounce the "bourgeois individualism" of her work - Andrei Zhdanov, Stalin's cultural commissar, labelled her "half harlot, half nun" - said of her:
The widespread worship of her memory in Soviet Union today, both as an artist and as an unsurrendering human being, has, so far as I know, no parallel. The legend of her life and unyielding passive resistance to what she regarded as unworthy of her country and herself, transformed her into a figure ... not merely in Russian literature, but in Russian history ...
In a 1989 interview about that ill-fated meeting in 1945, he commented:
... when I talked with Akhmatova, it was absolutely clear that during the Soviet era ... there were only four poets: there was herself, Mandel′shtam, there was Tsvetaeva, there was Pasternak. Nobody else counted. There were of course other poets ... that was of no interest to her. These four people were the only real ones for her.
Posterity has largely endorsed this verdict.


Anna Akhmatova's Funeral in Leningrad (10 March 1966)
l-to-r: Zoya Tomachevskaya (face obscured), Evgeny Rein, Era Korobova (in fur hat), Dmitry Bobyshev, Joseph Brodsky, unknown soldier (on Brodsky's right), Anatoly Naiman,leaning over Akhmatova.





Lydia Chukovskaya: The Akhmatova Journals: 1938-1941 (1994)


What, then, of her work? It's notorious that some poets "translate better" than others. This is not really based on their merit as writers, but more on the nature of their work. Poets who specialise in clear imagery conveyed in simple, straightforward diction - Guillaume Apollinaire, C. P. Cavafy, T. S. Eliot - tend to come across better than those whose interests lie more in testing the limits of expression in their own language.

Mallarmé, Shakespeare, Hölderlin: these are poets whose greatness in their own tongue more or less has to be taken on trust by foreign readers. Marina Tsvetayeva is definitely one of these writers. Not so Akhmatova. There's a clarity and finish to her work even in English which makes it easy to imagine that you're experiencing, if not the original, at least something very close to it.

I suspect this is often an illusion, but it has been of great assistance to the continuing strength of her reputation. There are limits, though. Only the first volume of a projected three-volume edition of Lydia Chukovskaya's tell-all Akhmatova Journals ever actually appeared in English. Fans of the poet (such as myself) are still waiting for the follow-up, thirty years on.

Another reason for Akhmatova's popularity is the perception of her as a "dissident" poet. Before the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, such a label virtually guaranteed a lively sale for any censored memoir or political novel: Babi-Yar, Cancer Ward, The Yawning Heights, these were just a few of the books which hit the bestseller lists in America and Europe. Some of them definitely merited it; others, I fear, probably didn't.

None of Akhmatova's three longer poems - Requiem (1935-40), Way of All the Earth (1940), and Poem without a Hero (1940-65) - were allowed to be published during her lifetime. The first and last of these are now seen as probably her most profound works, far surpassing the collections of short lyrics which were all that had appeared in Russian before her death.

Perhaps the easiest way of giving a idea of the sense of mission which animated her later writing would be to reprint American poet Stanley Kunitz & British Academic Max Hayward's classic translation of Akhmatova's Requiem:




Anna Akhmatova: Requiem 1935-1940 (Munich, 1963)


Requiem

- trans. Stanley Kunitz & Max Hayward (1974)

No foreign sky protected me, no stranger's wing shielded my face. I stand as witness to the common lot, survivor of that time, that place.
Instead of a Preface In the terrible years of the Yezhov terror I spent seventeen months waiting in line outside the prison in Leningrad. One day somebody in the crowd identified me. Standing behind me was a woman, with lips blue from the cold, who had, of course, never heard me called by name before. Now she started out of the torpor common to us all and asked me in a whisper (everyone whispered there): "Can you describe this?" And I said: "I can." Then something like a smile passed fleetingly over what had once been her face. Dedication Such grief might make the mountains stoop, reverse the waters where they flow, but cannot burst these ponderous bolts that block us from the prison cells crowded with mortal woe. ... For some the wind can freshly blow, for some the sunlight fade at ease, but we, made partners in our dread, hear but the grating of the keys, and heavy-booted soldiers' tread. As if for early mass, we rose and each day walked the wilderness, trudging through silent street and square, to congregate, less live than dead. The sun declined, the Neva blurred, and hope sang always from afar. Whose sentence is decreed? ... That moan, that sudden spurt of woman's tears, shows one distinguished from the rest, as if they'd knocked her to the ground and wrenched the heart out of her breast, then let her go, reeling, alone. Where are they now, my nameless friends from those two years I spent in hell? What specters mock them now, amid the fury of Siberian snows, or in the blighted circle of the moon? To them I cry, Hail and Farewell! Prologue That was a time when only the dead could smile, delivered from their wars, and the sign, the soul, of Leningrad dangled outside its prison-house; and the regiments of the condemned, herded in the railroad-yards, shrank from the engine's whistle-song whose burden went, "Away, pariahs!" The stars of death stood over us. And Russia, guiltless, beloved, writhed under the crunch of bloodstained boots, under the wheels of Black Marias. I At dawn they came and took you away. You were my dead: I walked behind. In the dark room children cried, the holy candle gasped for air. Your lips were chill from the ikon's kiss, sweat bloomed on your brow – those deathly flowers! Like the wives of Peter's troopers in Red Square I'll stand and howl under the Kremlin towers. II Quietly flows the quiet Don; into my house slips the yellow moon. It leaps the sill, with its cap askew, and balks at a shadow, that yellow moon. This woman is sick to her marrow-bone, this woman is utterly alone, with husband dead, with son away in jail. Pray for me. Pray. III Not, not mine: it's somebody else's wound. I could never have borne it. So take the thing that happened, hide it, stick it in the ground. Whisk the lamps away ... Night. IV They should have shown you – mocker, delight of your friends, hearts' thief, naughtiest girl of Pushkin's town – this picture of your fated years, as under the glowering wall you stand, shabby, three hundredth in the line, clutching a parcel in your hand, and the New Year's ice scorched by your tears. See there the prison poplar bending! No sound. No sound. Yet how many innocent lives are ending ... V For seventeen months I have cried aloud, calling you back to your lair. I hurled myself at the hangman's foot. You are my son, changed into nightmare. Confusion occupies the world, and I am powerless to tell somebody brute from something human, or on what day the word spells, "Kill!" Nothing is left but dusty flowers, the tinkling thurible, and tracks that lead to nowhere. Night of stone, whose bright enormous star stares me straight in the eyes, promising death, ah soon! VI The weeks fly out of mind, I doubt that it occurred: how into your prison, child, the white nights, blazing, stared; and still, as I draw breath, they fix their buzzard eyes on what the high cross shows, this body of your death. VII The Sentence The word dropped like a stone on my still living breast. Confess: I was prepared, am somehow ready for the test. So much to do today: kill memory, kill pain, turn heart into a stone, and yet prepare to live again. Not quite. Hot summer's feast brings rumors of carouse. How long have I foreseen this brilliant day, this empty house? VIII To Death You will come in any case – so why not now? How long I wait and wait. The bad times fall. I have put out the light and opened the door for you, because you are simple and magical. Assume, then, any form that suits your wish, take aim, and blast at me with poisoned shot, or strangle me like an efficient mugger, or else infect me – typhus be my lot – or spring out of the fairytale you wrote, the one we're sick of hearing, day and night, where the blue hatband marches up the stairs, led by the janitor, pale with fright. It's all the same to me. The Yenisei swirls the North Star shines, as it will shine forever; and the blue lustre of my loved one's eyes is clouded over by the final horror. IX Already madness lifts its wing to cover half my soul. That taste of opiate wine! Lure of the dark valley! Now everything is clear. I admit my defeat. The tongue of my ravings in my ear is the tongue of a stranger. No use to fall down on my knees and beg for mercy's sake. Nothing I counted mine, out of my life, is mine to take: not my son's terrible eyes, not the elaborate stone flower of grief, not the day of the storm, not the trial of the visiting hour, not the dear coolness of his hands, not the lime trees' agitated shade, not the thin cricket-sound of consolation's parting word. X Crucifixion "Do not weep for me, Mother, when I am in my grave." I A choir of angels glorified the hour, the vault of heaven was dissolved in fire. "Father, why hast Thou forsaken me? Mother, I beg you, do not weep for me. ..." II Mary Magdalene beat her breasts and sobbed, His dear disciple, stone-faced, stared. His mother stood apart. No other looked into her secret eyes. No one dared. Epilogue I I have learned how faces fall to bone, how under the eyelids terror lurks how suffering inscribes on cheeks the hard lines of its cuneiform texts, how glossy black or ash-fair locks turn overnight to tarnished silver, how smiles fade on submissive lips, and fear quavers in a dry titter. And I pray not for myself alone ... for all who stood outside the jail, in bitter cold or summer's blaze, with me under that blind red wall. II Remembrance hour returns with the turning year. I see, I hear, I touch you drawing near: the one we tried to help to the sentry's booth, and who no longer walks this precious earth, and that one who would toss her pretty mane and say, "It's just like coming home again." I want to name the names of all that host, but they snatched up the list, and now it's lost. I've woven them a garment that's prepared out of poor words, those that I overheard, and will hold fast to every word and glance all of my days, even in new mischance, and if a gag should blind my tortured mouth, through which a hundred million people shout, then let them pray for me, as I do pray for them, this eve of my remembrance day. And if my country ever should assent to casting in my name a monument, I should be proud to have my memory graced, but only if the monument be placed not near the seas on which my eyes first opened – my last link with the sea has long been broken – nor in the Tsar's garden near the sacred stump, where a grieved shadow hunts my body's warmth, but here, here I endured three hundred hours in line before the implacable iron bars. Because even in blissful death I fear to lose the clangor of the Black Marias, to lose the banging of that odious gate and the old crone howling like a wounded beast. And from my motionless bronze-lidded sockets may the melting snow, like teardrops, slowly trickle, and a prison dove coo somewhere, over and over, as the ships sail softly down the flowing Neva.



While the decision to try and preserve Akhmatova's original scansion and rhyme scheme is certainly an understandable one, it does unfortunately result in some rather ungainly word choices: rhyming "'Away, pariahs!'" with "Black Marias", for instance.

Subsequent translators, such as D. M. Thomas, have mostly abandoned the rhymes. Even in English, though, the strength of Akhmatova's grief is palpable, and the courage required to write such a poem at that time, in that place, cannot be ignored.

Perhaps it's too much of a showpiece, too deeply meditated an attempt on a legacy, to be really reflective of the living nature of her verse, though. It shows what she was like when faced with a subject literally beyond articulation.

Let's look instead at something more off-the-cuff, a lyric she wrote on the eve of war in 1914, about a visit to the (then) Russian Top Bard, Alexander Blok:




Konstantin Somov : Alexander Blok (1907)


    Александру Блоку
    - Анна Ахматова (1914)

    Я пришла к поэту в гости.
    Ровно полдень. Воскресенье.
    Тихо в комнате просторной,
    А за окнами мороз.
    
    И малиновое солнце
    Над лохматым сизым дымом...
    Как хозяин молчаливый
    Ясно смотрит на меня!
    
    У него глаза такие,
    Что запомнить каждый должен;
    Мне же лучше, осторожней,
    В них и вовсе не глядеть.
    
    Но запомнится беседа,
    Дымный полдень, воскресенье
    В доме сером и высоком
    У морских ворот Невы.




    Richard McKane: Anna Akhmatova: Selected Poems (1969)


  1. To Aleksandr Blok

  2. - trans. Richard McKane (1969)

    I visited the poet.
    Midday, Sunday.
    It was quiet in the big room
    and a frost outside the window,
    
    and a crimson sun
    above the shaggy dove-grey smoke ...
    The silent host
    looks at me piercingly.
    
    He has eyes which everyone
    always remembers.
    Better for me to be careful
    and not look into them at all.
    
    But I remember a conversation,
    a smoky midday, Sunday
    in a high, grey house
    by the sea-gates of the Neva.




    Stanley Kunitz & Max Hayward: Poems of Akhmatova (1974)


  3. To Alexander Blok

  4. - trans. Stanley Kunitz & Max Hayward (1973)

    I came to the house of the poet.
    Sunday. Precisely at noon.
    The room is big and quiet.
    Outside, in the frosty view,
    
    hangs a raspberry-colored sun
    over ropes of blue-grey smoke.
    The gaze of my watchful host
    silently envelops me.
    
    His eyes are so serene
    one could be lost in them forever.
    I know I must take care
    not to return his look.
    
    But the talk is what I remember
    from that smoky Sunday noon,
    in the poet’s high gray house
    by the sea-gates of the Neva.




    D. M. Thomas: You Will Hear Thunder (1985)


  5. I came to him as a guest ...
  6. for Alexander Blok

    - trans. D. M. Thomas (1979)

    I came to him as a guest.
    Precisely at noon. Sunday.
    In the large room there was quiet,
    And beyond the window, frost
    
    And a sun like raspberry
    Over the bluish-grey smoke-tangles.
    How the reticent master
    Concentrates as he looks!
    
    His eyes are of the kind that
    Nobody can forget. I’d
    Better look out, better
    Not look at them at all.
    
    But I remember our talk,
    Smoky noon of a Sunday,
    In the poet’s high grey house
    By the sea-gates of the Neva.




    Judith Hemschemeyer: The Complete Poems of Anna Akhmatova (1990)


  7. - to Alexander Blok

  8. - trans. Judith Hemschemeyer (1990)

    I visited the poet.
    Precisely at noon. Sunday.
    It was quiet in the spacious room,
    And beyond the windows, intense cold
    
    And a raspberry sun
    Above shaggy, bluish smoke ...
    How keenly my taciturn host
    Regarded me!
    
    He had the kind of eyes
    That everyone must recall,
    It was better for me to be careful,
    and not look at them at all.
    
    But I will recall the conversation,
    The smoky noon, Sunday
    In the tall, gray house
    By the sea gates of the Neva.




    Poetry in Translation: A. S. (Tony) Kline


  9. For Alexander Blok

  10. - trans. A. S. Kline (c. 2000)

    I came to the poet as a guest.
    Exactly at noon. On Sunday.
    Beyond the window, frost,
    Quiet in the room’s space.
    
    And a raspberry tinted sun
    Above tangles of blue smoke...
    How clearly the taciturn
    Master turns, on me, his look!
    
    His eyes are of that kind
    Remembered by one and all:
    Better take care, mind:
    Don’t gaze at them at all.
    
    But I remember our words,
    Smoky noon, of a Sunday,
    In that high grey house
    By the Neva’s sea-way.



  11. To Alexander Blok

  12. - trans. Andrey Kneller (2014)

    I went in to see the poet.
    Noon exactly. On a Sunday.
    The spacious room is quiet.
    But outside, there’s bitter frost
    
    And the raspberry-colored sun
    Over shaggy, blue smoke ...
    The gaze of my silent host
    Is clear and focused on me!
    
    The look in his eyes is such
    That everyone must remember;
    But as for me, being cautious, —
    I’d better not see it at all.
    
    But I’ll remember our talk,
    The smoky afternoon, on Sunday,
    In the poet’s high, gray house
    By the sea-gates of the Neva.




    poets.org: Rose Styron (2012)


  13. To Alexander Blok

  14. - trans. Rose Styron (2009)

    I have come to call on the poet.
    It is Sunday, exactly midday.
    The wide room is filled with quiet
    and through the casements now I see
    
    a purple sun suspended in frost
    over the winding disheveled gray
    smoke. My silent host
    (how clearly) looks at me.
    
    Luminous, clairvoyant eyes —
    Who could forget their gaze? I,
    Being prudent, make a choice:
    not to look into them. I turn away.
    
    But I shall remember always
    that smoky noon, Sunday
    in a quiet high gray house
    where the Neva courts the sea.



So there we are: seven English versions of the same Russian poem, published over a period of roughly forty years.

This time I will be making some comparisons with the original. Five years of Russian at school, some fifty-odd years ago, may not have left me with much fluency, but I do have a bit of a reading knowledge still.

The first question has to be, what is this poem about? A visit to another, senior poet, at his mysterious house by the "Sea-gates of the Neva" is the obvious, superficial answer. But of course (as usual) there's more to it than that.

Alexander Blok was, in many ways, a kind of Russian W. B. Yeats. Like Yeats, he had a strong interest in the spiritual and mystical, and - as you can see from the portrait at the head of this set of poems - a sufficiently striking appearance to inhabit the role of Magus or Archpoet with aplomb.

Akhmatova's visit to him is therefore presented as a kind of pilgrimage to an oracle, with portentous invocations of the exact time, place, and weather conditions. She is careful not to look him in the eyes - not so much from fear, as a determination not to surrender to his spell. Instead, it is the talk she remembers: the talk (it is implied) not so much of master and petitioner, as of two poetic equals.

It's hard to say how real Akhmatova's sense of trepidation at this meeting actually is. She carries it off lightly, but the competition between them is very real. She is, after all, a poet of a very different stripe than Blok, and any admiration she has for his work must be tempered by her Acmeist determination to reject the vague transcendences of the Symbolists.


Aleksandr Blok: Dvenadtsat' [The Twelve] (1918)


Like Yeats, Blok tried to reinvent and modernise himself in the years after 1914 ("when the real - not the calendar - twentieth century began," as Akhmatova put it in her Poem without a Hero). His most famous poem "Двена́дцать" [The Twelve] (1918) reimagines the 12 Apostles as a set of Red Guards, marching aggressively and violently through a snowstorm towards a distant figure of Christ. The ragged street language in which it was written, plus its revolutionary message, succeeded in alienating almost all of his former admirers. Along with "Скифы" [The Scythians], it showed a harder, more pitiless side to Blok.


Iurii Annenkov: Frontispiece to Dvenadtsat' (1918


Lke so many others who initially welcomed the Revolution (Pasternak, for instance), Blok rapidly became disillusioned with the Bolsheviks. When he died in 1921, he hadn't written any poetry for three years:
He complained to Maksim Gorky that his "faith in the wisdom of humanity" had ended, and explained to his friend Korney Chukovsky why he could not write poetry any more: "All sounds have stopped. Can't you hear that there are no longer any sounds?"
Is any of this foreshadowed in the poem? Probably not. It was, after all, written just as the First World War was breaking out. There may have been some anticipation of a revolution to come at the time, but nobody could have foretold its nature. But there's still a sense here, if only when it's read in retrospect, of a world poised for change: a 'high grey house" balanced precariously alongside a river notoriously prone to floods. In that sense it reads a little like Pasternak's 1934 novella The Last Summer, a memory of a time when life still "appeared to pay heed to individuals."

What, then, of the various versions? I guess that I have a soft spot for Stanley Kunitz's, possibly because it was the first one I ever read. It still seems admirably clear and concise, with careful echoes of the abrupt syntax of the original.

Rose Styron is the only translator who recasts the poem into the present tense. This is, technically, incorrect, as Akhmatova's poem is clearly in past tense: "Я пришла к поэту в гости" [I came to the poet as a guest]. But I have to say that it has the effect of making the scene more vivid in the mind's eye: it's quite an ingenious device for livening up her version, in fact.

The second line of the poem: "Ровно полдень. Воскресенье." translates literally as "Exactly Noon. Sunday." Richard McKane conveys this concisely as "Midday, Sunday"; Kunitz reverses it as "Sunday. Precisely at Noon"; D. M. Thomas uses Kunitz's wording, but goes back to Akhmatova's ordering with "Precisely at Noon. Sunday"; Judith Hemschemeyer - whose breathtakingly complete translation of Akhmatova's work admirers of the poet are so indebted to - repeats Thomas with the single variation of a lower-case "noon" - "Precisely at noon. Sunday"; A. S. Kline varies that slightly as "Exactly at Noon. On Sunday"; Andrey Kneller expands on that slightly as "Noon exactly. On a Sunday"; Rose Styron is the only one to turn it into a complete sentence: "It is Sunday, exactly midday."

There are two great problems when it comes to translating Russian poetry into English. The first is the articles. Russian doesn't use definite and indefinite articles such as "the" or "a" the way we do, so a series of decisions have to be made about how to echo the conciseness of a language which confines itself solely to nouns and verbs in our more padded-out, hybrid tongue.

The other problem is the synthetic / analytic dichotomy. Russian (like other synthetic languages such as Latin or German) is a language which codes a huge amount of information into each word: nouns have endings which define what case they're in (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, etc.). Verbs, too, have endings which show clearly who it is who's speaking them: me, you, we, they or any other person.

English, by contrast, like other analytic languages, conveys most of this information with other words surrounding the verbs and nouns. Every time a verb is used, pronouns are required to tell us who's saying what to whom. Also, the order of words in a sentence is crucial to understanding its meaning: "Man bites dog" does not mean the same thing as "Dog bites man" in English.

In Russian, by contrast, the sentence, "Мужчина укусил собаку" clearly means "Man bites dog" - but it would still mean that even if you wrote it "Собаку укусил мужчина." The word ending tells us that "Собаку" is the object, so "Мужчина" must be the subject. Also, that verb ending demands a masculine subject, such as "Мужчина." If, however, you wanted to say "Dog bites man", you would have to write "Собака укусила мужчину" - once again, the word endings tell us that "Собака" must be the subject, whereas "Мужчину" is now the object. You'll note, too, that the verb ending tells us that it has a feminine subject: "Собака."

You can see what a resource it can be to a poet to be able to convey so much meaning in a single word! In English, though, a cloud of clarifying words is generally required to give the same sense: hence the much greater wordiness of most translations from the Russian, and the consequent temnptation to simplify and abridge to avoid ambiguities.

There's no real dispute as to the meaning of Akhmatova's deliberately simple poem. But each translator has a slightly different sense of the atmosphere of the visit, and the precise significance of Akhmatova's avoidance of the poet's hypnotic eyes in favour of - presumably less dangerous - chit-chat. As you can see, even in this one example, she's a poet of precise details. Ignore such nuances at your peril.


Alexander Blok: Apartment Museum (St Petersburg)





Jack Ross: The Great New Zealand Vortex (1997)


In early 1997 I wrote a short story called "The Great New Zealand Vortex," which purported to be a reconstruction of the life and work of an imaginary Kiwi Vorticist named Walter E. Clarke.

In its original form, the story included extensive quotations from the preface to A World Away, a collection of Clarke's literary remains edited in 1947 by a certain Winifred Cannon. Much of this was pruned away before the story first saw print - first in two issues of local journal evasion 2 (4) & (5) (2003)], and subsequently in my short fiction collection Monkey Miss Her Now (Auckland: Danger Publishing, 2004).

One of the sections which was cut included an adaptation to local conditions of Akhmatova’s poem:
... she concludes her remarks on this first visit [to Clarke, with whom she "may well have been romantically involved"} by quoting from some verses she wrote about it (apparently an imitation of Akhmatova’s famous tribute to Aleksandr Blok).
It is hard to guess what precisely is meant by “the sea-gates of Herne Bay” until one remembers that Akhmatova’s poem closes with a evocation of her own poet’s house “by the sea-gates of the Neva”.

I came to visit the poet
On Sunday, at high noon.
It was quiet in the dusty chamber,
He hummed an Irish tune

As I tried not to meet his glance,
Return the pressure of his eyes;
A raspberry-coloured sun
Blew wood-smoke over the rise.

But the talk is what I remember
From that long-ago Sunday,
In the poet’s sea-green house
By the sea-gates of Herne Bay.


Herne Bay (2015)





Olga Della-Vos-Kardovskaya: Portrait of Anna Akhmatova (1914)

Anna Andreëvna Gorenko
[Anna Akhmatova]

(1889-1966)

Books I own are marked in bold:
    Poetry:

  1. Вечер [Evening] (1912)
  2. Чётки [Rosary] (1914)
  3. Белая Стая [White Flock] (1917)
  4. Подорожник [Plantain] (1921)
  5. Anno Domini MCMXXI (1921)
  6. Тростник [Reed] [two-volume collection of selected poems; compiled but never published] (1924-1926)
  7. Из шести книг [From Six Books] [publication suspended shortly after release, copies pulped and banned] (1940)
  8. Избранные Стишки [Poetry Selections] (1943)
  9. Ива [not published separately] (1965)
  10. Седьмая Книга [Seventh Book] [not published separately] (1965)
  11. Стихотворения (Poems] (1958)
  12. Стихотворения 1909-1960 [Poems: 1909–1960)] (1961)
  13. Бег Времени [The Flight of Time: Collected Works 1909–1965] (1965)
  14. Избранное (2004)
    • Избранное. Москва: Издателъство ACT, 2004.

  15. Prose:

  16. О Пушкине: Статьи и заметки [About Pushkin: Articles and Notes] (1977)

  17. Translations:

  18. Selected Poems. Trans. Richard McKane (1969)
    • Selected Poems. Trans. Richard McKane. Essay by Andrei Sinyavsky. 1969. Penguin Modern European Poets. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.
  19. Poems of Akhmatova. Trans. Stanley Kunitz & Max Hayward (1973)
    • Poems of Akhmatova / Анна Ахматова. Избранные Стихи. Selected & Trans. Stanley Kunitz with Max Hayward. 1973. London: Collins and Harvill Press, 1974.
  20. Requiem and Poem without a Hero. Trans. D. M. Thomas (1976)
  21. Way of All the Earth. Trans. D. M. Thomas (1976)
    • Way of All the Earth. Trans. D. M. Thomas. 1969. London: Martin Secker & Warburg Limited, 1979.
  22. Selected Poems. Trans. D. M. Thomas (2006)
    • Selected Poems. Trans. D. M. Thomas. 1976, 1979 & 1985. Penguin International Poets. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988.
  23. Twenty Poems of Anna Akhmatova. Trans. Jane Kenyon (1985)
  24. Selected Poems. Trans. Richard McKane (1988)
    • Selected Poems. Trans. Richard McKane. 1969. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Bloodaxe Books Ltd., 1989.
  25. The Complete Poems of Anna Akhmatova. Trans. Judith Hemschemeyer. Ed. Roberta Reeder (1990)
    • The Complete Poems (Revised and Expanded Edition). Trans. Judith Hemschemeyer. Ed. Roberta Reeder. 1990. Boston: Zephry Press / Edinburgh: Canongate Books, 1997.
  26. My Half Century: Selected Prose. Trans. Ronald Meyer (1997)
  27. The Word That Causes Death's Defeat: Poems of Memory (Annals of Communism). Trans. Nancy Anderson (2004)
  28. Selected Poems. Trans. Walter Arndt (2009)
  29. Final Meeting: Selected Poetry of Anna Akhmatova. Trans. Andrey Kneller (2014)

  30. Secondary:

  31. Chukovskaya, Lydia. The Akhmatova Journals. Volume I: 1938-41. 1976. Trans. Milena Michalski & Sylva Rubashova. Poetry trans. Peter Norman. Harvill. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
  32. Haight, Amanda. Akhmatova: A Poetic Pilgrimage (1976)
  33. Pyman, Avril. The Life of Aleksandr Blok. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979-80.
    1. The Distant Thunder, 1880-1908 (1979)
    2. The Release of Harmony, 1908-1921 (1980)




Anna Akhmatova: Муза [The Muse] (1924)


The Muse

- trans. Robert Chandler (b. 1953)

I feel my life hang by a hair
as I wait at night for the Muse;
youth, freedom, fame melt into air
as my guest appears with her flute.

She enters, tosses back her shawl;
her half-closed eyes let nothing pass.
‘So it was you who sang of Hell
to Dante?’ ‘Yes,’ she says, ‘it was.’


Savely Sorin: Anna Akhmatova (1914)





William Roberts: The Vorticists at the Restaurant de la Tour Eiffel (1961-62)

Modern Poets in English

  1. C. P. Cavafy (1863-1933)
  2. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
  3. Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891)
  4. Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926)
  5. Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918)
  6. Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935)
  7. Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938)
  8. Eugenio Montale (1896-1981)
  9. Federico García Lorca (1898-1938)
  10. Salvatore Quasimodo (1901-1968)
  11. Pablo Neruda (1904-1973)
  12. Paul Celan (1920-1970)



Tuesday, February 17, 2026

The Cult of the Bully


The Simpsons: Homer chokes Bart (2023)


Way, way back in history, virtually at the dawn of time, I remember hearing a lot of buzz about a brand new TV show about a subversive young punk named Bart. His catch-phrases: "Eat my shorts!," "Ay, caramba!," and "Don't have a cow, man!" were already legendary.

But then I watched the programme.

It didn't take long to work out that Bart's was a mere bit part - along with the saxophone-playing Lisa and the long-suffering Marge. There could be only one hero: the fat, stupid, bigoted paterfamilias Homer.

I couldn't really understand it at first. Why was he the star? The other characters were so much more interesting. Why should he be the sun they all revolved around?

But then I started to grasp it. In the bizarre travesty of "family-friendly" (i.e. thought-hostile) norms which had gradually accreted in American pop culture - first in Hollywood, then Network TV - the change-resistant, ideologically as well as racially conservative white man must ipso facto be at the centre of everything.

The workings of this machine are adroitly analysed in Slavoj Žižek's notorious "Pervert's Guide to Cinema", where he points out the "secret motif" in (for instance) all the key Spielberg movies: "the recovery of the father, of his authority."


All in the Family: Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker (1971-83)


Archie Bunker was one of the most successful archetypes of this hero with a thousand faces. Again, at the time, I couldn't work out why the butt of almost all the jokes in the show was gradually humanised and centralised until he, inexorably, assumed the mantle of the whole production (remember Archie Bunker's Place?).

It put me in mind of Toril Moi's celebrated comment (from her 1985 book Sexual/textual Politics) about the oppressed subject "internalising the standards of the aggressor." [1] A character may start as a target for satire (like Archie Bunker's original, Alf Garnett, in the mordant British sit-com Till Death Us Do Part), but then the picture begins to adjust back to normal: and the unwise-at-times but basically loveable head-of-the-family model reasserts itself.

It also reminded me of the infamous 2005 "Monkey Pay-per-View" study, where a group of Macaques turned out to be willing to trade cups of fruit-juice for a chance to look at pictures of attractive, celebrity monkeys. Male macaques wanting to look at sexy females seems normal enough - but monkeys of all genders paying out juice to gaze on the images of powerful males is, I fear, yet another manifestation of this thesis.


Colin Watson: Snobbery with Violence (1971)


Let's not pretend that this is an exclusively American phenomenon. Colin Watson's entertaining analysis of the classic English Crime Story gives some startling data about the kinds of heroes who flourished in Britain between the wars. Take "Sapper"'s protagonist Bulldog Drummond, for instance. Here are a few salient quotes from his merry adventures:
[To an adversary he addresses as "fungus face']: "Only a keen sense of public duty restrains me from plugging you where you sit, you ineffable swine."

[His idea of a hobby]: "Years ago we had an amusing little show rounding up Communists and other unwashed people of that type. We called ourselves the Black Gang, and it was a great sport while it lasted."

[His views on Russia, "ruled by its clique of homicidal, alien jews"]: "The most frightful gang of murderous-looking cut-throats I've ever seen (officers seem to have no control)."
In the last case, it appears to be their disrespect for officers which weighs more in the balance for Drummond than any other aspect of the Bolshevik creed.


'Sapper': Bulldog Drummond at Bay (1935)


Prominent leftist poet Cecil Day-Lewis (himself an accomplished detective story writer) referred to Bulldog Drummond as "that unspeakable Public School bully." But, as Colin Watson explains:
... fantasy heroes usually are bullies. They must win, and since their opponents seem to enjoy a monopoly of cunning, sheer physical advantage has to be invoked.
It rather puts one in mind of Goering's much-quoted remark: "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver." [2]



There was an interesting case reported in the media the other day about a British woman who was "shot dead by her father after a heated argument about Donald Trump." As so often on these occasions, it's the line taken by the defence that's really jaw-dropping. The father, a certain Kris Harrison, explained that:
he owned a Glock 9mm handgun for “home defence” and had received no formal firearms training. He initially denied drinking that day but later admitted consuming a 500ml carton of wine in the morning, though he insisted alcohol did not influence his actions [my emphasis].
He further claimed that "he had a conversation about guns with his daughter and she asked to see the gun" - despite never having "discussed his gun ownership with him before."

The sequence of events appears to have been more-or-less as follows: the father got into an argument with his daughter, Lucy Harrison, over the merits of Donald Trump's dismissal without penalty after his conviction for falsifying business records to hide the payment of hush-money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Lucy's boyfriend, Sam Littler, told the court that:
Harrison asked her father: “How would you feel if I was the girl in that situation and I’d been sexually assaulted?”
He said Kris replied that it would not upset him much because he had two other daughters living with him. Harrison then ran upstairs, visibly distressed.
Around half an hour later, Kris took his daughter’s hand and led her into his bedroom. Seconds later, a gunshot rang out.
Littler said he rushed in and found Harrison lying on the floor, while her father screamed incoherently.
Police later concluded she died from a gunshot wound to the heart fired at medium range.
And the father's explanation?
"As I lifted the gun to show her I suddenly heard a loud bang. I did not understand what had happened. Lucy immediately fell."
He told police who attended the scene: "We got it out to have a look and just as I picked it up it just went off."
Needless to say, "a grand jury in the US ... determined there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with Lucy Harrison's death."

I mean, don't get me wrong, it may have been an accident. The contention that she "asked to see the gun" sounds a little unlikely, though, given her well-documented abhorrence of firearms. Also, it seems an odd thing to want to do a few minutes before leaving for the airport to fly home.

Back in Britain, at the Cheshire Coroners' Court, matters panned out a little differently:
Coroner Jacqueline Devonish announced that she found Lucy Harrison died due to unlawful killing on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter.
The coroner said: "To shoot her through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger.
"I find these actions to be reckless."
Unfortunately these findings are from a coroner's court and not a criminal court, so have no actual effect on Kris Harrison, "described by the coroner as a functioning alcoholic."

So just what does a guy have to do to get indicted for manslaugher - let alone murder - in a court in Texas? Maybe if it had been the other way round, and the daughter was the Trump suppporter? I suspect Kris Harrison might well be looking at a bit of jailtime then ...


Mark Twain: Roughing It (1872)


Given these contradictory responses from two courts in two different countries ("divided by a common language," as George Bernard Shaw once put it), the question remains: Is there something in American culture which particularly lends itself to idealisation of the violent bully?

George Orwell certainly thought so. As he said in his classic 1944 essay "Raffles and Miss Blandish":
In America, both in life and fiction, the tendency to tolerate crime, even to admire the criminal so long as he is successful, is very much more marked [than in England]. It is, indeed, ultimately this attitude that has made it possible for crime to flourish upon so huge a scale. Books have been written about Al Capone that are hardly different in tone from the books written about Henry Ford, Stalin, Lord Northcliffe and all the rest of the “log cabin to White House” brigade. And switching back eighty years, one finds Mark Twain adopting much the same attitude towards the disgusting bandit Slade, hero of twenty-eight murders, and towards the Western desperadoes generally. They were successful, they “made good,” therefore he admired them.
This may be a little unfair to Mark Twain. Orwell may have read as blind admiration a description originally meant ironically. At this distance in time, it's hard to be sure. Certainly Twain had no time for that bully extraordinaire, the much-hyped "hero" of San Juan Hill, President Theodore Roosevelt.



Here are a few extracts from Matt Seybold's amusing article "The Nastiest Things Mark Twain Said About Teddy Roosevelt":
“[Roosevelt] is naively indifferent to the restraints of duty and even unaware of them; ready to kick the Constitution into the back yard whenever it gets in the way; and whenever he smells a vote, not only is he willing but eager to buy it, give extravagant rates for it and pay the bill not out of his own pocket or the party’s, but out of the nations, by cold pillage.” (February 16, 1905)

“The list of unpresidential things, things hitherto deemed impossible, wholly impossible, measurelessly impossible for a president of the United States to do — is much too long for invoicing here.” (May 29, 1907)

“Mr. Roosevelt is the most formidable disaster that has befallen the country since the Civil War – but the vast mass of the nation loves him, is frantically fond of him, even idolizes him. This is the simple truth. It sounds like a libel upon the intelligence of the human race, but it isn’t; there isn’t any way to libel the intelligence of the human race.” (September 13, 1907)

“Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the Great Republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for audience; he would go to Halifax for half a chance to show off, and he would go to hell for a whole one.” (December 2, 1907)

“We have never had a President before who was destitute of self-respect and of respect for his high office; we have had no President before who was not a gentleman; we have had no President before who was intended for a butcher, a dive-keeper or a bully, and missed his mission.” (January 5, 1909)

“Roosevelt is the whole argument for and against, in his own person. He represents what the American gentleman ought not to be, and does it as clearly, intelligibly, and exhaustively as he represents what the American gentleman is. We are by long odds the most ill-mannered nation, civilized or savage, that exists on the planet to-day, and our President stands for us like a colossal monument visible from all the ends of the earth.” (April 3, 1906)

Ct Mirror: Trump and Teddy Roosevelt (2017)


Is it just me, or could one just as easily substitute another recent presidential surname for "Roosevelt" above?

Interestingly, Mark Twain's main theme here seems to be the President's vulgarity and lack of culture. The examples Twain analysed in more detail were mostly instances of "ungentlemanly" disrespect towards women - though he was also unsparing in his denunciations of the hypocrisy and perfidy shown by his countrymen in the brutal annexation of the Philippines.




RNZ: NZ's Coalition Goverment (2023)
l-to-r: Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon, David Seymour


In conclusion, I guess I'd like to see this set of interesting - to me, at any rate - data-points as a bit more than just another anti-Trump diatribe. Most of those try to present him as something egregious, unprecedented in American - possibly in world - culture.

On the contrary, I'd like to argue that the real problem is that he's so completely typical. Every run-of-the-mill male chauvinist has contributed a little to this particular conundrum. Even in little old New Zealand we have more than our fair share of such consummate asses.


Mystic River: "Daddy is a king" (2003)


I think that one of the most striking instances of the cult in full cry would have to be the bizarre monologue delivered by Laura Linney at the end of Clint Eastwood's 2003 film Mystic River, where she extols her murderous criminal of a husband, played by Sean Penn, because he is, in her eyes, "a king." The fact that he's just ordered the killing of an old schoolmate, whom he and his gang suspected (wrongly) of having raped Sean Penn's daughter, simply serves to redouble her blind adoration.

We hear the same poisonous slop every day from the grovelling fools surrounding the great Don - even though each of them knows beyond question that they'll be replaced in an instant the moment they cease to genuflect ... and start to question.

Is it his fault they're such spineless jellyfish? No, it's theirs - and ours.





Notes:

1. While I did myself (I think) first encounter "internalising the standards of the aggressor" in Toril Moi's influential book, the actual source of the phrase is Hungarian Psychoanalyst Sándor Ferenczi. In his 1932 paper "Confusion of the Tongues Between the Adults and the Child," Ferenczi argued that children facing extreme aggression or abuse "survive by internalizing ... the attacker, turning themselves into the object of use, and dissociating from their own feelings." This has a tendency to lead to "self-blame and compliance" to manage trauma.

2. My friend Richard Taylor has reminded me that the quote "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver," frequently attributed to Hermann Goering, "actually originates from the play Schlageter by Hanns Johst. The original line from the play is slightly different: "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!" (When I hear culture, I release the safety catch of my Browning!). This line was performed in 1933 to celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday and has been misattributed to several prominent Nazis, including Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler."



Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Cavafy in English



It's hard to think of any foreign language writer who's had a greater influence on modern English poetry than the languid Alexandrian C. P. Cavafy.

His friend E. M. Forster described him as ""a Greek gentleman in a straw hat, standing absolutely motionless at a slight angle to the universe", and it's that awkward yet insouciant air, combined with the emotional anguish of his love life - not to mention his ever-present sense of the sheer weight of three thousand turbulent years of Greek history - which fascinate us still.


Leonid Pasternak: Rilke in Moscow (1928)


Who could you compare him with? There's the deracinated Austrian-Czech Rainer Maria Rilke, of course. His famous sonnet about the "Archaic Torso of Apollo" with its self-accusatory conclusion "Du mußt dein Leben ändern" [You must change your life] is probably more familiar to readers now than "The Panther", even - let alone the Duino Elegies (1923). It's hard to imagine twentieth-century poetry without him.


Pessoa sinking a dram (Lisbon, 1929)


Then, of course, there's Fernando Pessoa. Fascinating though I find the man, I'd have to admit that few of his actual poems - that is, if he can be said to have written many without a convenient mask to colour-code their content in advance - interest me as much as the concepts he embodies: above all, the idea of the heteronymn.

Of course there are lots of other twentieth-century modernist poets most of us know by name, at least, if not in detail: Guillaume Apollinaire, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Czesław Miłosz, Eugenio Montale, Pablo Neruda - not to mention my main man Paul Celan.

All of the above have exerted a strong influence on writers in English, but whether that extends very far past the mavens of high culture is debatable. Their respective statuses in their own countries and literatures is another matter entirely: that's far too complex to try to analyse here.


Max Beckmann: Paris Society (1931)





Penguin Classics: Poets in Translation (1996-2005)


At its inception, some thirty years ago, the idea of the Penguin Poets in Translation series appears to have been that each volume should chart the particular idiosyncratic forms one classic poet's reputation and work have taken over time in English literary culture. Here's the full list:
  1. Homer in English. Ed. George Steiner & Aminadav Dykman (1996)
  2. Horace in English. Ed. D. S. Carne-Ross & Kenneth Haynes (1996)
  3. Martial in English. Ed. John P. Sullivan & Anthony J. Boyle (1996)
  4. The Psalms in English. Ed. Donald Davie (1996)
  5. Virgil in English. Ed. K. W. Gransden (1996)
  6. Baudelaire in English. Ed. Carol Clark & Robert Sykes (1998)
  7. Ovid in English. Ed. Christopher Martin (1998)
  8. Seneca in English. Ed. Don Share (1998)
  9. Catullus in English. Ed. Julia Haig Gaisser (2001)
  10. Juvenal in English. Ed. Martin M. Winkler (2001)
  11. Dante in English. Ed. Eric Griffiths & Matthew Reynolds (2005)
  12. Petrarch in English. Ed. Thomas P. Roche (2005)
A projected thirteenth volume, Rilke in English, to be edited by German-English poet and translator Michael Hofmann, seems never to have appeared.

As you can see, all the poets included - with the partial exception of Baudelaire - have many centuries of interpretation and translation to draw on. Rilke, by contrast, is a comparative newcomer to world poetry. The publishers may have thought it doubtful that enough worthwhile material could be found to compile a volume commensurate with those devoted to, say, Homer or Dante.


Harry Thomas, ed.: Montale in English (2005)


But that doesn't seem to have deterred the editor of Montale in English (2005), whose substantial selection of translations from the Nobel Prize-winning Italian poet - which appeared originally as Eugenio Montale: Poems (Penguin Modern Classics, 2002) - has since been supplemented by New Zealand-based Italian poet and translator Marco Sonzogni's Corno inglese: An Anthology of Eugenio Montale's Poetry in English Translation (2009), a volume to which I myself was happy to contribute.


Marco Sonzogni, ed.: Corno Inglese (2009)


As a tribute to Penguin's original concept, I've decided it might be interesting to compile a complementary list of more modern poets whose influence in English has been particularly striking. Here are my 12 proposed candidates:
  1. Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891) [French]
  2. C. P. Cavafy (1863-1933) [Greek]
  3. Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926) [German]
  4. Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) [French]
  5. Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) [Portuguese]
  6. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966) [Russian]
  7. Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938) [Russian]
  8. Eugenio Montale (1896-1981) [Italian]
  9. Federico García Lorca (1898-1938) [Spanish]
  10. Salvatore Quasimodo (1901-1968) [Italian]
  11. Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) [Spanish]
  12. Paul Celan (1920-1970) [German]
I've confined it mainly to poets in whom I myself take a strong interest. I've also stuck to a kind of linguistic quota system: two French poets, two German poets, two Italian poets, two Russian poets, two Spanish poets, along with a Greek poet and a Portuguese poet.

There are, of course, innumerable others I could have included, and I'm only too conscious of the crippling gender imbalance in this list. I thought it would be hypocritical to include any writers whom I myself find uncongenial, though, or whose work I don't know well enough to discuss in detail (hence no Seferis, no Ungaretti, no Valéry, no Mayakovsky ...)

Over the years, I've attempted versions of poems by some - by no means all - of the writers above: occasionally, recklessly, without any knowledge of the language in question (Greek, for instance, in Cavafy's case). I wouldn't claim to understand any of them in any depth; but I "think continually" about all of them (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Spender). They've enriched my life; I'd like to try to explain why.

In any case, that's the project. We'll just have to see how far I get with it after this, the first instalment in the series. There'll only need to be eleven posts, though, as I've decided to count the work done already on Montale in English by Harry Thomas in America and Marco Sonzogni in New Zealand as quite enough said on that particular subject.


Eugenio Montale: Poems. Ed. Harry Thomas (2002)





Lawrence Durrell: Justine (1957)


To come back to Cavafy, I'm forced to admit that my own first introduction to his poetry was probably in Lawrence Durrell's Justine, the first part of his Alexandria Quartet. Durrell's constant references to the "old poet of the city" - not to mention his inclusion of his own free translations of "The City" and "The God Abandons Antony" - were enough to awaken a lot of us to the existence of this hitherto rather obscure poet.

There are versions of another four Cavafy poems at the end of Clea, the final volume in the series, but - while striking in themselves - they mainly serve to accentuate the impact already made by the two included in Justine. They are, in order, "The Afternoon Sun," "Far Away," "One of Their Gods," and "Che fece ... il gran rifiuto" [he who made ... the great refusal]. The title of the last poem makes reference to Dante's characterisation of one of the souls - probably Pope Celestine V, the first to lay down the Papacy on account of old age; also the last, until Benedict XVI's resignation in 2013 - trapped aimlessly in front of Hell's Gate.


E. M. Forster: Alexandria: A History and A Guide (1922)


Strangely enough, it was actually in English that Cavafy made his first substantive claim on the world's attention. Bloomsbury insider E. M. Forster spent much of the First World War stationed in Alexandria as a Red Cross volunteer. When he wasn't agonising over recalcitrant drafts of his novel A Passage to India, he passed the time compiling a guidebook to the city.

In the process, he met Cavafy. And so "The God Abandons Antony," in a translation by George Valassapoulo, is situated strategically at the end of the historical section of Forster's book. He went on to publish a more substantial essay about Cavafy a year later, in the set of impressionistic travel pieces Pharos and Pharillon.


E. M. Forster: Pharos and Pharillon (1923)


The God Abandons Antony
- trans. George Valassopoulo (1922)

When at the hour of midnight
an invisible choir is suddenly heard passing
with exquisite music, with voices - 
Do not lament your fortune that at last subsides,
your life's work which has failed, your schemes that have proved illusions.
But like a man prepared, like a brave man,
bid farewell to her, to Alexandria who is departing.
Above all, do not delude yourself, do not say that it is a dream, 
that your ear was mistaken.
Do not condescend to such empty hopes.
Like a man for long prepared, like a brave man,
like to the man who was worthy of such a city,
go to the window firmly, 
and listen with emotion,
but not with the prayers and complaints of the coward
(Ah! supreme rapture!)
listen to the notes, to the exquisite intruments of the mystic choir,
and bid farewell to her, to Alexandria whom you are losing.




Cavafy died in 1933. The first major Greek edition of his collected poems appeared in Alexandria two years later, but it probably wasn't until John Mavrogordato's pioneering English translation of the bulk of his work came out from the Hogarth Press in 1951 that he really began to attract attention.

Within a few years of the publication of Durrell's Justine, the first (so-called) "complete" English translation of his poems was published in London and New York. Rae Dalven's version remains smooth and serviceable, but it was probably the fact that the book included an introduction by W. H. Auden that really created waves. "Atlantis," Auden's adaptation of Cavafy's famous poem "Ithaka," was among the first poems he wrote on his arrival in America in 1939.

After that, as you can see from the bibliography included below, the floodgates were open. If you knew anything at all about world poetry, it was impossible to be unaware of Cavafy's work. Canadian singer / songwriter Leonard Cohen
... transformed Cavafy's poem "The God Abandons Antony", based on Mark Antony's loss of the city of Alexandria and his empire, into "Alexandra Leaving", a song around lost love.
It's also intriguing to see in that Wikipedia list a reference to Greek director Stelios Haralambopoulos's film The Night Fernando Pessoa Met Constantine Cavafy, which posits an imaginary encounter between these two great flâneurs on a transatlantic ocean liner on the 21st of October, 1929, a few days before the Wall Street crash ...



Ithaka
- trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1975)

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon — you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbors you’re seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind —
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you’re destined for.
But don’t hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you’re old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.

And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you’ll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.




J. M. Coetzee: Waiting for the Barbarians (1980)


Nobel prize-winning novelist J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians takes its name from a Cavafy poem. Along with "The God Abandons Antony" and "Ithaka," it's unquestionably one of his most easily recognisable - and influential - works.

I thought it might be interesting to compare a few different translations of it. What is it about this particular poem which has focussed so many writers' attention, over so many years?




K. P. Kavaphē: Poiēmata (1935)


    Περιμένοντας τους Bαρβάρους
    - Κωνσταντίνος Πέτρου Καβάφης (1898 / 1904)

    — Τι περιμένουμε στην αγορά συναθροισμένοι;
    
    Είναι οι βάρβαροι να φθάσουν σήμερα.
    
    — Γιατί μέσα στην Σύγκλητο μια τέτοια απραξία;
    Τι κάθοντ’ οι Συγκλητικοί και δεν νομοθετούνε;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα.
    Τι νόμους πια θα κάμουν οι Συγκλητικοί;
    Οι βάρβαροι σαν έλθουν θα νομοθετήσουν.
    
    — Γιατί ο αυτοκράτωρ μας τόσο πρωί σηκώθη,
    και κάθεται στης πόλεως την πιο μεγάλη πύλη
    στον θρόνο επάνω, επίσημος, φορώντας την κορώνα;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα.
    Κι ο αυτοκράτωρ περιμένει να δεχθεί
    τον αρχηγό τους. Μάλιστα ετοίμασε
    για να τον δώσει μια περγαμηνή. Εκεί
    τον έγραψε τίτλους πολλούς κι ονόματα.
    
    — Γιατί οι δυο μας ύπατοι κ’ οι πραίτορες εβγήκαν
    σήμερα με τες κόκκινες, τες κεντημένες τόγες·
    γιατί βραχιόλια φόρεσαν με τόσους αμεθύστους,
    και δαχτυλίδια με λαμπρά, γυαλιστερά σμαράγδια·
    γιατί να πιάσουν σήμερα πολύτιμα μπαστούνια
    μ’ ασήμια και μαλάματα έκτακτα σκαλιγμένα;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα·
    και τέτοια πράγματα θαμπώνουν τους βαρβάρους.
    
    — Γιατί κ’ οι άξιοι ρήτορες δεν έρχονται σαν πάντα
    να βγάλουνε τους λόγους τους, να πούνε τα δικά τους;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα·
    κι αυτοί βαρυούντ’ ευφράδειες και δημηγορίες.
    
    — Γιατί ν’ αρχίσει μονομιάς αυτή η ανησυχία
    κ’ η σύγχυσις. (Τα πρόσωπα τι σοβαρά που εγίναν).
    Γιατί αδειάζουν γρήγορα οι δρόμοι κ’ η πλατέες,
    κι όλοι γυρνούν στα σπίτια τους πολύ συλλογισμένοι;
    
    Γιατί ενύχτωσε κ’ οι βάρβαροι δεν ήλθαν.
    Και μερικοί έφθασαν απ’ τα σύνορα,
    και είπανε πως βάρβαροι πια δεν υπάρχουν.
    
    __
    
    Και τώρα τι θα γένουμε χωρίς βαρβάρους.
    Οι άνθρωποι αυτοί ήσαν μια κάποια λύσις.




    John Mavrogordato: The Poems of C. P. Cavafy (1951)


  1. Waiting for the Barbarians

  2. - trans. John Mavrogordato (1951)

    What are we waiting for all crowded in the forum?
        The Barbarians are to arrive today.
    Within the Senate-house why is there such inaction?
    The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?
        Because the Barbarians arrive today.
        What laws now should the Senators be making?
        When the Barbarians come they'll make the laws.
    
    Why did our Emperor get up so early in the morning?
    And at the greatest city gate why is he sitting there now,
    Upon his throne, officially, why is he wearing his crown?
        Because the Barbarians arrive today.
        The emperor is waiting to receive
        Their Leader. And in fact he has prepared
        To give him an address. On it he has
        written him down all sorts of names and titles.
    
    Why have our two Consuls gone out, both of them, and the Praetors
    Today with their red togas on , with their embroidered togas?
    Why are they wearing bracelets, and all those amethysts too,
    And all those rings on their fingers with splendid flashing emeralds?
    Why should they be carrying today their precious walkingsticks,
    With silver knobs and golden tops so wonderfully carved?
        Because the Barbarians will arrive today;
        Things of this sort dazzle the Barbarians.
    
    And why are the fine orators not come here as usual
    To get their speeches off, to say what they have to say?
        Because the Barbarians will be here today;
        And they are bored with eloquence and speechmaking.
    
    Why should this uneasiness begin all of a sudden?
    And confusion. How serious people's faces have become.
    Why are all the streets and squares emptying so quickly,
    and everybody returning home again so full of thought?
        Because night has fallen and the Barbarians have not come.
        And some people have arrived from the frontier;
        They said there are no Barbarians any more.
    
        And now what will become of us without Barbarians? -
        Those people were some sort of a solution.




    Rae Dalven: The Complete Poems of C. P. Cavafy (1961)


  3. Expecting the Barbarians

  4. - trans. Rae Dalven (1961)

    What are we waiting for, assembled in the public square?
    
    The barbarians are to arrive today.
    
    Why such inaction in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit and pass no laws?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today.
    What further laws can the Senators pass?
    When the barbarians come they will make the laws.
    
    Why did our emperor wake up so early,
    and sits at the principal gate of the city,
    on the throne, in state, wearing his crown?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today
    and the emperor waits to receive 
    their chief. Indeed he has prepared
    to give him a scroll. Therein he engraved
    many titles and names of honor.
    
    Why have our two consuls and the praetors come out
    today in their red, embroidered togas;
    Why do they wear amethyst-studded bracelets,
    and rings with brilliant, glittering emeralds;
    Why are they carrying costly canes today,
    superbly carved with silver and gold?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today,
    and such things dazzle the barbarians.
    
    Why don’t the worthy orators come as usual
    to make their speeches, to have their say?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today;
    and they get bored with eloquence and orations.
    
    Why this sudden unrest and confusion?
    (How solemn their faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and squares clearing quickly,
    and all return to their homes, so deep in thought?
    
    Because night is here but the barbarians have not come.
    Some people arrived from the frontiers,
    and they said that there are no longer any barbarians.
    
    And now what shall become of us without any barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard: C. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems (1990)


  5. Waiting for the Barbarians

  6. - trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1975)

    What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
    
          The barbarians are due here today.
    
    
    Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
    Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today.
          What’s the point of senators making laws now?
          Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.
    
    
    Why did our emperor get up so early,
    and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
    in state, wearing the crown?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
          He’s even got a scroll to give him,
          loaded with titles, with imposing names.
    
    
    Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
    wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
    Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
    rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
    Why are they carrying elegant canes
    beautifully worked in silver and gold?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
    
    
    Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
    to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
    
    
    Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
    (How serious people’s faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
    everyone going home lost in thought?
    
          Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
          And some of our men just in from the border say
          there are no barbarians any longer.
    
    
    Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Evangelos Sachperoglou: The Collected Poems: with Parallel Greek text (2007)


  7. Waiting for the Barbarians

  8. - trans. Evangelos Sachperoglou (2007)

    – What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
    The barbarians are to arrive today.
    
    – Why then such inactivity in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit back and do not legislate?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    What sort of laws now can Senators enact?
    When the barbarians come, they’ll do the legislating.
    
    – Why is our emperor up so early,
    and seated at the grandest gate of our city, upon the throne,
    in state, wearing the crown?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    And the emperor expects to receive their leader.
    He has even prepared to present him
    with a parchment scroll where he has
    invested him with many names and titles.
    
    – Why have our two consuls and the praetors come out
    today in their purple, embroidered togas;
    why did they put on bracelets studded with amethysts,
    and rings with resplendent, glittering emeralds;
    why are they carrying today precious staves
    beautifully worked in gold and silver?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today
    and such things dazzle the barbarians.
    
    – And why don’t our distinguished orators come out as usual
    to give their speeches, say what they have to say?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and they are bored by rhetoric and public speeches.
    
    – Why this sudden commotion, this confusion?
    (How solemn people’s faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and the squares emptying so quickly,
    and everyone is returning home lost in thought?
    
    Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
    And some of our men have arrived from the frontiers,
    and say that there are no barbarians anymore.
    
    — And now, what will become of us without barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Daniel Mendelsohn: C. P. Cavafy: Complete Poems (2012)


  9. Waiting for the Barbarians

  10. - trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)

    - What is it that we are waiting for, gathered in the square?
    
          The barbarians are supposed to arrive today.
    
    
    - Why is there such great idleness inside the Senate house?
      Why are the Senators sitting there, without passing any laws?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today.
          Why should the Senators still be making laws?
          The barbarians, when they come, will legislate.
    
    
    - Why is it that our Emperor awoke so early today,
      and has taken his position oat the greatest of the city’s gates
      seated on his throne, in solemn state, wearing the crown?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today.
          And the emperor is waiting to receive 
          their leader. Indeed he is prepared
          to present him with a parchment scroll. In it
          he's conferred on him many titles and honorifics.
    
    
    - Why have our consuls and our praetors come outside today
      wearing their scarlet togas with their rich embroidery,
      Why have they donned their armlets with all their amethysts,
      and rings with their magnificent, glistening emeralds;
      Why should they be carrying such precious staves today,
      maces chased exquisitely with silver and with gold?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today;
          and things like that bedazzle the barbarians.
    
    
    - Why do our worthy orators not come today as usual
     to deliver their addresses, each to say his piece?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today;
          and they’re bored by eloquence and public speaking.
    
    
    - Why has this uneasiness arisen all at once,
      and this confusion? (How serious the faces have become.)
      Why is it that the streets and squares are emptying so quickly,
      and everyone's returning home in such deep contemplation?
    
          Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
          And some people have arrived from the borderlands,
          and said there are no barbarians anymore.
    
    
    And now what’s to become of us without barbarians.
    Those people were a solution of a sort.



  11. Waiting for the Barbarians

  12. - trans. Björn Thegeby (2018)

    – What are we waiting for here in the square?
    
    It’s the barbarians who will arrive today.
    
    – Why is there in the Senate such torpor?
    How do the Senators sit and not pass laws?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    What laws will the Senators adopt now?
    The barbarians when they come will adopt laws.
    
    – Why does our Emperor rise this early,
    and sit by the largest gate in the city
    upon the throne, in splendour, wearing the crown?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    And the Emperor is waiting to receive
    their leader. He is ready
    to give him a parchment. On which
    he wrote many titles and honours.
    
    – Why did our two consuls and praetors go out
    today with their red, their embroidered togas;
    why did they wear bracelets with so many amethysts,
    and rings with sparkling, more sparkling emeralds;
    Why today do they clutch precious staffs
    exquisitely carved with silver and gold?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and such things impress the barbarians.
    
    – Why the worthy orators do not come as before
    to deliver their speeches, to say their own words?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and speeches and rethoric bore them.
    
    – Why this sudden concern
    and unease. (How serious the faces have become).
    Why are the streets and the squares emptying fast,
    and everyone goes to their homes very thoughtful?
    
    Because night came and the barbarians did not arrive.
    And some arrived from the border,
    and told us barbarians no longer exist.
    
    __
    
    And now what will happen without barbarians.
    Those people were a sort of solution.



  13. Waiting for the Barbarians

  14. - trans. Evan Jones (2020)

    – Why are we waiting in the agora?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today.
    
    – Why is there such uncertainty in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit there and not legislate?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today.
         What laws can our Senators enact now?
         The barbarians will legislate when they arrive.
    
    – Why has our emperor awoken so early,
    and seated himself before the city’s main gate,
    on his throne, solemn, wearing his crown?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today
         and the emperor wants to greet
         their leader. As is the custom, he will
         present him with a parchment.
         Many titles and names are written on it.
    
    – Why have our two consuls and the praetors chosen
    today to don their red, embroidered togas?
    Why are they wearing bracelets adorned with amethyst
    and rings with shiny, glistening emeralds?
    Why do they carry expensive walking sticks
    gilded and inlaid with silver?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today,
         and such things impress barbarians.
    
    – And why have our outspoken orators not come as always
    to spout their words, to have their say?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today,
         and eloquence and speeches bore them.
    
    – Where has this anxiousness and confusion come from
    all of a sudden? Look at the haunted faces.
    Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly
    and everyone returning to their homes so worried?
    
         Because night fell and the barbarians never arrived.
         Some men travelled to the border region,
         and reported that the barbarians no longer exist.
    
                ——
    
    Now what will we do without the barbarians?
    They were a sort of solution for us.



Thomas Cole: The Course of Empire: Destruction (1801)


So there we are: seven English versions of the same Greek poem, published over a period of some seventy years.

Some are definitely more wordy than others. Daniel Mendelsohn's is particularly egregious in that respect. When you have to type them out one after another, you begin to notice the redundant words and clumsy periphrases some of the translators employ. But they're all recognisably the same poem.

John Mavrogordato's version puts me in mind of W. H. Auden's 1930s ballad "O What Is That Sound:
O what is that sound which so thrills the ear
Down in the valley drumming, drumming?
Only the scarlet soldiers, dear,
The soldiers coming.
Compare that with the opening of Mavrogordato's poem:
What are we waiting for all crowded in the forum?
The Barbarians are to arrive today.
Within the Senate-house why is there such inaction?
The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?
Because the Barbarians arrive today.
There's the same question / response pattern within the stanzas, and Mavrogardato even runs on the syntax of some of his lines to give a similar breathless intensity: "The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?"

Rae Dalven's translation, by contrast, has a simple straightforwardness to it. She ignores the dashes and spacing of the original, and lays it all out as directly as possible. She's also the only one who dared to change the title, though it's hard to see "Expecting the Barbarians" as any improvement over "Waiting for the Barbarians."

The joint translation by Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard stood as the standard version for many years. They're less bold than Mavrogordato, and more literal than Rae Dalven. Their version, though a little stilted in parts, combines an accurate knowledge of the original with a sound poetic ear for English idiom. They generally provide a good yardstick to measure other versions against.

Evangelos Sachperoglou's 2007 translation, for instance, has better idiomatic phrasing in parts than any of his predecessors. But as a whole, it doesn't offer much they don't. It's certainly better than Mendelsohn's. The only reason for buying the latter, in fact, is because it includes a lot of material missing from other editions. This is important for completists, but unfortunately the poorly worded translations make his version only really useful as a crib.

And what of our last two translations, by (respectively) Björn Thegeby and Evan Jones? Thegeby's is not particularly well worded:
– What are we waiting for here in the square?

It’s the barbarians who will arrive today.

– Why is there in the Senate such torpor?
How do the Senators sit and not pass laws?
That's by far the poorest opening to any of the translations. Jones, by contrast, does a solid, workmanlike job. Some of his phrasing has the effect of undermining the tension of the situation, however:
What laws can our Senators enact now?
The barbarians will legislate when they arrive.
That's not nearly as effective as Sachperoglou's ominous: "When the barbarians come, they’ll do the legislating." But then, Mavrogordato's: "When the Barbarians come they'll make the laws" is probably even better. Dalven must have thought so. She ended up making only one small change to his line:
When the barbarians come they will make the laws.
So I guess the real question is whether or not it's really worth while making such basically similar versions of the same canonical poem? There's nothing really wrong with the later versions (though I do have certain doubts about Mendelsohn's and Thegeby's), but do they need to exist?

The rather maverick liberties of Mavrogordato's translation were softened and corrected by Dalven's blander and simpler version. Keeley and Sherrard revisited the entire question of whether a more accurate reflection of Cavafy's original could still be combined with a certain poetic grace: very successfully, in most readers' opinion.

After that, though, why not translate it into Scots? or reimagine the whole thing in some more radical way? I don't see the point of compiling such transcripts unless someone arises who has a superlative gift for accurate phrasing: "What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd," as Pope puts it.

Cribs will always have their place - which I suppose is one strong argument in favour of Mendelsohn's wordy but thorough version.

But I'm afraid that I refuse to see Cavafy as just one more dead writer with nothing important left to say. If anything, his world-weary cynicism seems more appropriate than ever in the final paroxysms of yet another bumptious imperial world order.


Doctors without Borders: Gaza Death Trap (2024)





C. P. Cavafy (1914-1996)

Konstantinos Petrou Kavafis
[Constantine P. Cavafy]

(1863-1933)

Books I own are marked in bold:
    Text:

  1. Ποιήματα [Poiēmata] (1935)

  2. Translations:

  3. Poems by C. P. Cavafy. Trans. John Mavrogordato (1951)
    • Poems. Trans. John Mavrogordato. Introduction by Rex Warner. 1951. London: Chatto & Windus, 1974.
  4. The Complete Poems of Cavafy. Trans. Rae Dalven. Introduction by W. H. Auden (1961)
    • The Complete Poems of Cavafy. Trans. Rae Dalven. Introduction by W. H. Auden. London: The Hogarth Press, 1961.
  5. The Greek Poems of C.P. Cavafy. Trans. Memas Kolaitis. 2 vols (1989)
  6. Passions and Ancient Days - 21 New Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & George Savidis (1972)
  7. Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis (1975)
    • Collected Poems: Bilingual Edition. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. London: The Hogarth Press, 1975.
    • Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. 1975. London: Chatto & Windus, 1979.
  8. Poems by Constantine Cavafy. Trans. George Khairallah (1979)
  9. Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. Rev. ed. (1992)
  10. Selected Poems of C. P. Cavafy. Trans. Desmond O'Grady (1998)
  11. Before Time Could Change Them: The Complete Poems of Constantine P. Cavafy. Trans. Theoharis C. Theoharis. Foreword by Gore Vidal (2001)
  12. Poems by C. P. Cavafy. Trans. J. C. Cavafy (2003)
  13. I've Gazed So Much. Trans. George Economou (2003)
  14. The Canon. Trans. Stratis Haviaras. Foreword by Seamus Heaney (2004)
  15. The Collected Poems. Trans. Evangelos Sachperoglou. Ed. Anthony Hirst. Introduction by Peter Mackridge (2007)
    • The Collected Poems. Trans. Evangelos Sachperoglou. Ed. Anthony Hirst. Introduction by Peter Mackridge. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  16. The Collected Poems of C. P. Cavafy: A New Translation. Trans. Aliki Barnstone. Introduction by Gerald Stern (2007)
  17. Selected Poems. Trans. Avi Sharon (2008)
  18. Cavafy: 166 Poems. Trans. Alan L Boegehold (2008)
  19. Collected Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)
    • Collected Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. 2009. A Borzoi Book. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.
  20. The Unfinished Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)
    • The Unfinished Poems: The First English Translation. Based on the Greek Edition of Renata Lavagnini. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. A Borzoi Book. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
  21. Selected Prose Works. Ed. & trans. Peter Jeffreys (2010)
  22. Poems: The Canon. Trans. John Chioles. Ed. Dimitrios Yatromanolakis (2011)
  23. Selected Poems. Trans. David Connolly (2013)
  24. Complete Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2013)
    • Complete Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. 2009 & 2012. Harper Press. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.
  25. Clearing the Ground: C. P. Cavafy, Poetry and Prose, 1902-1911. Trans. Martin McKinsey (2015)
  26. The Barbarians Arrive Today: Poems & Prose. A Cavafy Reader. Trans. Evan Jones (2020)
    Selections:

  27. Lawrence Durrell. Justine (1957)
    • The Alexandria Quartet: Justine; Balthazar; Mountolive: Clea. 1957, 1958, 1958, 1960. London: Faber, 1962.
  28. Six Poets of Modern Greece. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1960)
    • Six Poets of Modern Greece: Cavafy; Sikelianos; Seferis; Antoniou; Elytis; Gatsos. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. London: Thames and Hudson, 1960.
  29. Four Greek Poets. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1966)
    • Four Greek Poets: C. P. Cavafy / Odysseus Elytis / Nikos Gatsos / George Seferis: Selected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Penguin Modern European Poets. 1966. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.
  30. The Penguin Book of Greek Verse. Ed. Constantine A. Trypanis (1971)
    • The Penguin Book of Greek Verse: With Plain Prose Translations of Every Poem. Ed. Constantine A. Trypanis. The Penguin Poets. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
  31. Modern Greek Poetry. Ed. Kimon Friar (1973)
  32. Memas Kolaitis. Cavafy as I knew him (1980)
  33. Jack Ross. City of Strange Brunettes (1998)
    • "The God Abandons Antony." In City of Strange Brunettes. Birkenhead, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand: The Pohutukawa Press, 1998.
  34. James Merrill. Collected Poems (2002)
    • Collected Poems. Ed. J. D. McClatchy & Stephen Yenser. 2001. New York: Alfred a. Knopf, 2002.
  35. Jack Ross. The Imaginary Museum of Atlantis (2006)
    • "Ithaka." In The Imaginary Museum of Atlantis. R.E.M. Trilogy 2. ISBN 0-9582586-8-6. Auckland: Titus Books, 2006.
  36. David Ferry. Bewilderment (2012)
  37. Don Paterson. Landing Light (2003)
  38. Derek Mahon. Adaptations (2006)
  39. A. E. Stallings. Hapax (2006)
  40. Don Paterson. Rain (2009)
  41. John Ash. In the Wake of the Day (2010)
  42. David Harsent. Night (2011)

  43. Secondary:

  44. Forster, E. M. Alexandria: A History and Guide. 1922. Ed. Michael Haag. Introduction by Lawrence Durrell. 1982. London: Michael Haag Limited, 1986.
  45. Forster, E. M. Pharos and Pharillon. 1923. Berkeley: Creative Arts Books, 1980.
  46. Liddell, Robert. Cavafy: A Critical Biography. 1974. Introduction by Peter Mackridge. London: Duckworth, 2000.


Robert Liddell: Cavafy: A Critical Biography (1976)





William Roberts: The Vorticists at the Restaurant de la Tour Eiffel (1961-62)

Modern Poets in English

  1. C. P. Cavafy (1863-1933)
  2. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
  3. Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891)
  4. Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926)
  5. Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918)
  6. Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935)
  7. Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938)
  8. Eugenio Montale (1896-1981)
  9. Federico García Lorca (1898-1938)
  10. Salvatore Quasimodo (1901-1968)
  11. Pablo Neruda (1904-1973)
  12. Paul Celan (1920-1970)