Serenella Zanotti
The Translator’s Visibility: The Italian Translations of Finnegans Wake

1. Finnegans Wake and the Italian Literary Polysystem[1]

As Walter Benjamin (2000: 16) suggested in a now well-known essay (The Task of the Translator),

a translation comes later than the original, and since the important works of world literature never find their chosen translators at the time of their origin, their translation marks their stage of continued life.[2]

Finnegans Wake found his “chosen translator” in a particular moment in the history of the Italian literature, to which Schenoni’s translation undoubtedly belongs.

Schenoni’s translation did not come out in a vacuum. Instead, it was the most articulate response to the needs developed by the Italian culture in the previous decades. Bits and pieces of Finnegans Wake had been translated in the early 60s, soon after the publication of De Angelis’ Italian version of Ulysses (Joyce 1960). These experiments were part of a specific literary context: the 1960s Italian experimentalism, partly represented by the so called new-avant-garde, also known as Gruppo 63, a group of writers and critics which included, among many others, Umberto Eco. In his Open Work (Eco 1962), Finnegans Wake was presented as a crucial moment in the development of contemporary poetics, being the birth place of a new dimension of literary language. Joyce’s work was thus read as “a form of the world in language, a hypothesis offered from within the linguistic format” (Eco 1989: 84). In Eco’s words, FW was born from “the idea of aesthetic pleasure, not as the flashing exercise of an intuitive faculty but as a process of intelligence that deciphers and reasons, enraptured by the difficulty of communication” (Eco 1989: 81). Within this theoretical and aesthetic borders the poets and writers of the neo-avant-garde group, as well as the translators of FW, would pursue their artistic research.

Between 1962 and 1963 three issues of two avant-garde journals, Quaderno (1962) and EX (1963), were printed under the editorship of Emilio Villa, one of the poets most closely connected to Joyce’s theoretical and linguistic instances, and Mario Diacono. A series of points were made in a sort of manifesto in opposition to what the authors called a “pathological state of culture”:

hyperglossia. Intraverbal hiding of themes, structure, ideology. denationalization of language, plurivocity of words, annihilation of the humanistic sense. chaotic, neurotic indulging in the sign, pure acting within the form, an eye into the psycho-chemy of the unconscious (Diacono 1962b: 1, my translation).

At the time Mario Diacono had just concluded his translation of FW 107-108, one of the first translations of Finnegans Wake to appear in Italy (Diacono 1961). This experience had a direct influence on Diacono’s poetic writing. Indeed, in Denomisegninatura (Diacono 1962a), and especially in the texts that were published in the aforementioned journals, Diacono appeared as one of the most faithful and coherent among Joyce’s Italian adepts. His Joycean poetics and approach to language are apparent in a multilingual poem entitled “Piccadillinger Square où la métaérotique mil”, which reads as follows:

(ES)itante – no grazie aspetto scepsi co-
la dans le jardin de finti con genì (ita-
lics, genitalis).

mysolf la selfblowing bubble a incestro ba-
reando c’om’omo but I do j’écris/je-cris
la religione del mio – s’esso en sonnéant
le tompeau le tombeaur avec l’ossa dei fi-
ve mortaccinque S.U.A.(Diacono, 1962b: 9-11)

In those years Finnegans Wake had become a point of reference for poets of the young generation such as Alfredo Giuliani, a leading figure of the neo-avant-garde as well as a fine translator of Chamber Music and Pomes Penyeach (see Joyce 1961). The Joycean spirit of Nuove predilezioni (New Predilections), a collection of poems mostly composed between 1963 and 1964, but published only in 1986, clearly emerges in the following text, almost entirely based on word-agglutinations and neologisms as well as on an association processes which seem to be decided by the musical effect of word combination:

smum smum: perso l’olfatto (ominicànide) / salgo soddisfatto
al quinto piano / porcogiromondovagare / mentegatto: coda
scopa secchio bolle / intrusivamente nervose chiavarticolazioni
il tempo rale lepri rintananti: le persiane fischialgie
d’un interno foro / mondiglio stagnante a perdiocchio (Giuliani 1986: 87)

The Finneganian vein which had bashfully showed up in the Italian literature during the 1960s did not dry up in the 1970s. Instead, there was a kind of Joycean revival and consequently a deeper assimilation of Joyce’s last work. In 1970 Mario Diacono’s pioneering translation from FW was re-printed in the “Lilliput” series of the publisher Colonnese; two years later Celati’s dialect version of the Wellington Museum episode was issued in the journal Il Caffè (Celati 1972). In 1976 the French paper Tel Quel called new attention on FW by publishing the original text of the Italian translation Joyce himself had done, in collaboration with Nino Frank, of a few fragments of Anna Livia Plurabelle. A literary event which had an immediate resonance in the Italian literary world. This is certainly the case with the Rome based journal Carte Segrete, issued between 1967 and 1979 under the direction of Domenico Javarone and Gianni Toti, who followed in the experimental line of the neo-avant-garde and aimed at playing, in smaller scale, the role Tel Quel was playing in France. It was in Carte Segrete that Joyce’s Italian version of Anna Livia Plurabelle was re-published, thirty-six years after its first and controversial publication in Prospettive, one of the many journals that were printed in Rome during Fascism (Joyce 1940 and 1941). It was in the same journal, Carte Segrete, that young Schenoni’s attempts to translate FW were published, in 1977 and 1979 respectively (see Schenoni 1977 and 1979). In the Italian experimental circles all these Finneganian publications were received as literary events and would have repercussions on the experimental literature to come.

The success gained and the stir caused by the Italian Anna Livia made Joyce’s last work sound more familiar and approachable, but also imitable because of the language. By transposing or better re-writing into Italian two fragments of his impenetrable book, Joyce had demonstrated how productively an un-agglutinative language such as Italian could be treated for creative purposes, and how the limits of the language itself could be easily overcome, thus opening up new poetic possibilities. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the 1970s Joyce started to be considered, in Jacqueline Risset’s words, “a contemporary Italian poet” (Risset 1994: 157, my translation). In his poetic work Es-O-Es (1980) Giuliano Gramigna, an active member of the Gruppo 63, spoke of a “counterlanguage called sleep” (“controlinguaggio che chiamano sonno”),  thus making a clear reference to FW (Gramigna 1980: 7). He also refers to a “language which tangles which dis-phonems / it tries to but does not make itself an a-language” (“Lingua che s’intrica che sfonèma / desidera ma non si rende alingua”, Gramigna 1980: 65). Joyce is also present in the poetry of a younger poet, Cesare Viviani, particularly in his early works (L’ostrabismo cara, 1973 and Piumana, 1977):

E dure, tempio fa,
incabalàti trovonno in questa distrettoia
ai mêm desunti carich tablò limitato e
fecero deportage tuttoinismo.
Mana ciapò il colosso dell’accusa
Semmàle dà yalare,
si percepiede in coppa:
ma no, Fèdi che il miro
a bindella d’Egitto rigirata nel mar di serravalle
non lava spazio a dei
se non quirino attendente all’eroso (Viviani, 1977: 53)

The writing technique is again borrowed from FW: calembours, word-agglutinations, puns, oral speech devices, etc.; in short all of Joyce’s linguistic armoury is displayed into verses which are not immediately understandable and hardly translatable.

Similar experiments were also being undertaken, around the same time, by several novelists, probably under the influence of Schenoni’s translated excerpts. In 1977 Gianni Toti, the director of Carte Segrete, published the novel Il padrone assoluto. Its language, cultural universe and structure were clearly modelled on FW. In Il gran trucco (1978), however, Giuliano Gramigna went even further. The novel is a sort of re-writing and actualization of FW, where Joyce himself appears, though under different names (Coen, Mr Shame Gioia, Mr Gem Joy, Giacomo il Celta, etc.), among his characters: Anna Livia Plurabelle (also called “Paola Mannoni”, “Portatrice di Plurabilità! Polly... Pollyeach... Polly Berrettina... Polikushka! ...Parola!”) and the four evangelists (namely, Saint Marx, professor Champollion, Isaac Babel and Simplicissimus).

It is clear that for these writers FW was a powerful, very influential example of language experimentation. But due to the particular nature and history of the Italian literary tradition, Joyce’s last work was not actually received (that is translated) until the early 1980s, more than forty years after its first edition was printed.

As Venuti (2000: 11) points out, every translation enacts “an interpretation that is informed by a history of reception”. When, in a given culture, a literary text is said to be translatable it means that the receiving process has come to maturity. In other words, “[t]ranslations that are more than transmissions of subject matter come into being when in the course of its survival a work has reached the age of its fame” (Benjamin 2000: 17). What strikes most is that even in France, traditionally more advanced than Italy in the reception of modernist authors, the translation of FW by Philippe Lavergne only appeared in 1982, the same year of Schenoni’s first volume, on the occasion of Joyce’s centenary. It took a long time for those two cultures to become familiar with Joyce’s work, and it happened almost contemporarily. In France, it was with Raymond Queneau and the movement known as “Oulipo” (see Slote 2004: 387), as well as with Tel Quel’s influential treatment of Joyce, that FW entered a phase of popularity. In Italy, FW only arrived when a tradition of Joyce studies had been established and after the new-avant-garde explosion, which was certainly indebted to the French experimental wave of the 1950s and 60s. It was the new-avant-garde that elaborated and widespread an idea of FW as “a form of the world in language” (Eco 1989: 84).

2. The Translator’s Poetics

In 1972, the writer Gianni Celati claimed that “the translation of an invented language is impossible by definition, and also useless: what remains is only the possibility of a demonstrative gesture, a chance to bring up the subject and echo the silence of words” (Celati, 1972: 29, my translation). However, it was clear, from his very first experiments, that Luigi Schenoni’s translation of FW (Joyce 1982) was something more than a “demonstrative gesture”. Rather it was an attempt to assimilate, by way of translation (or re-writing), the untranslatable work par excellence – Finnegans Wake – to the Italian literary polysystem.

As already said, Schenoni’s translation did not appear in a vacuum, both literary and linguistic. On the contrary, the translation attests to (and is the consummation of) the slow assimilation of such a monster book of the 20th century by the Italian culture. As if Joyce’s voyage au bout de l’anglais continued in Italian, in a book that is itself a voyage au bout de l’italien. A voyage from which the Italian language would not come back unaltered.

Translating FW means, in Schenoni’s own words, “to give your interpretation of the work, one of the infinite possible ones, into your own language” (my emphasis). An approach that necessarily calls into question the translator’s personality. In an interview published in 1983 Schenoni also claimed:

I have subjected the Italian language to the same process of transformation and stratification of the meaning as that to which Joyce subjected the English language.

In this process, though trying to keep as close as possible to the spirit of the work, I have allowed myself some interpretative liberty, thus sometimes moving away from the original while keeping to its atmosphere, in order to preserve the elements I decided to privilege according to a personal but pondered choice: alliterations, musicality of the sentence, multiplicity of meaning. (Schenoni 1984: 126, my translation)

What needs to be underlined here is the progression with which the awareness of the translator’s role takes shape in Schenoni’s mind, and how this awareness somehow reflects the most recent acquisitions in the field of translation theories.

In a more recent interview (dated 2002) Schenoni goes even further:

I might be immodest but I have to say that my translation is really a re-creation of Joyce’s work, because I try to render it in a language equivalent to the one he used, normally called wakese; the language I create is a wakese based on Italian […]. It does need some creativity. […] After all, I am a poet, even when I translate FW (Schenoni 2002) [3]

In a paper now published in the volume Romantic Joyce (Ruggieri ed., 2003) this idea is re-affirmed,[4] to the point that any “translation, adaptation or whatever you call it” of FW  is said to be “itself a creative work”. “I consider my translation – Schenoni says – a recreation” (Schenoni 2003: 225, my emphasis).

Indeed, a translation of FW can not be but re-creative. The questions of translatability and of the translator’s role has been illustrated by Rosa Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli (1978: 96-7). Due to its irreducible resistance to any linguistic rationalization, Finnegans Wake,

paradoxically, lends itself to be transcribed into an Italian ‘equivalent’, provided that the ‘ritual rhythm’ of the original is preserved, sound is given preminence over sense, and words are reconstructed within a system as much arbitrary as the original one.

Any translator of FW, whether he/she likes it or not, is necessarily arbiter of such arbitrariness (my emphasis).[5]

3. Aspects of the Translation

Umberto Eco has marked the “missionary motivations” behind Schenoni’s translation (Eco 1978: 83, my translation), his intention to make the immense resources of Joyce’s book available to the Italian public, including quotations and hidden references, that is the complex semantic stratification of the text. Indeed, in the three volumes published so far the size of the glossary seems to have been gradually expanded to the point of exceeding and even doubling the size of the translated text. The exponential increase of the glosses tells a lot about the position of the translator, who thus makes himself doubly visible: not only as a re-creator of Joyce’s text, but also as an intepreter. He therefore imposes himself as the mediatorbetween reader and text.

In Schenoni’s translation notes have a crucial role: on the one hand, they indicate what is necessarily lost in translation (the multiple meanings that the translator has not been able to convey, both for the limits itself of the receiving language and for the innate polysemy of Joyce’s text); on the other hand, notes explain what is not immediately intelligible (that is, the various encyclopaedic, geographical references, etc.). As a consequence, the complexity of the text, which the translation carefully reproduces with no concession to readability, is somewhat emphasized, if not simply signalled. The aim of the translation, in Schenoni’s view, is thus to “stimulate the same riddling tension as Joyce’s English original” (Eco 1978: 83).

It is true that Giulio de Angelis, the Italian translator of Ulysses, carefully annotated his translation, but his notes were published separately. In Schenoni’s case, instead, annotations form themselves a book in the book; they are part of it. It is interesting to note that none of the FW translations that have been published so far outside Italy include annotations; and that among them, only the Dutch and the German translations are published with parallel texts. Schenoni’s philological approach to translation is thus revealed by the paratext itself, which seems to gain an unprecedented relevance.

Schenoni’s translating strategies have been analysed in depth by Rosa Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli, who considers him “quite successful in often maintaining the rhythm and sound effects of the original, in inventing words that evoke similar chains of associations, in finding brilliant solutions to puns and cultural references, in trying to construct a text that asks of the reader the same kind of efforts as Joyce’s ‘ideal reader affected by an ideal insomnia’” (Bollettieri Bosinelli 1990: 151). In the following pages I will briefly illustrate the strategies followed by Schenoni as well as other translators when coping with FW 306-08, the children’s chapter.

One of the densest chapters in the book (Tindall 1969: 170), it represents “the great scholar tasks that have occupied mankind from the beginning” (Campbell-Robinson 1947: 138) while describing the study hour of the children (Shem, Shaun and Isabel). The structure of the chapter is framed according to the internal partition of the medieval studies of the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) and Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy). There are also references  to the doctrines of the Cabala.

What puzzles the reader at first glance is the form itself of the chapter: a main text with marginal glosses and footnotes. Soon one realizes that Joyce has chosen a “mimetic form” (Tindall 1969: 171) to parody scholarship and erudition (the form and style of the chapter are that of a treatise). At the same time, however, Joyce goes beyond mere parody, since marginal glosses and footnotes are introduced to express the children’s point of view: Shaun’s comments, “abstract, professorial, and profounder than their occasion” (Tindall 1969: 172), are placed in the right-hand margin; Shem’s comments, “gay and irreverent”, on the left. The former are printed in italics, the latter in capitals. Isabel is responsible for the footnotes, the most instructive and funniest part of the chapter. What Joyce is enacting here is clearly a meta-discursive play: the children comment on, while writing it, the book itself (Finnegans Wake). 

The chapter was published in a separate volume in 1937, under the title Storiella as She is Syung, which seems to give Isabel (Issy) a protagonist role. Indeed, while her brothers talk and strive endlessly and inconclusively, Issy gets directly to the heart of the matter thanks to her spontaneous and irreverent wisdom.

The result is a jumbling up of voices and tones which carries the original polyphony of the book to extremes. The translator’s task, in this case, is twofold: on the one hand, to reproduce the complex of scholarly references that are part of the chapter’s obscurity; on the other hand, to render Joyce’s polyphonic effect at the level of both the main text and, so to say, the paratext in the most appropriate way.

I have chosen the last pages of the chapter in question because another translation of the same passage, by the Anglo-Argentinean writer, critic and translator Rodolfo Wilcock, is also available (Wilcock 1961). A comparative analysis of the translators’ strategies and choices will be far more rewarding than a source text oriented evaluation.

I will first give an example from FW 306.8-15:

Wilcock’s text reads as follows:

Item, finita la mizpah.
Entra la guardia e come. Si assicura il gubernant urbis terrorem.
Ma perché diacono indugiano? O chei, Impostulopulos? Stufi stufi stufi stufi stufi studiavimus. Molti molti molti molti molti manducabimus. Abbiamo tutti avuto la nostra ora di balestra e fatto il nostro meglio come stridenti. Arte, letteratura, politica, economia, chimica, classici, eccetera:
Catone)                     “Il dovere, figlia della disciplina”;
Nerone)                     “Il grande incendio dei mercati del sud”;
Saul)              “Dobbiamo credere alle leggende di giganti e di fate?”;
Aristotele)                 “Un posto per ogni cosa e ogni cosa al suo posto” […][6].

What strikes most in Wilcock’s translation is the drastic rearrangement of the text graphics, which necessarily flattens the polyphonic effect of the original. All marginal comments are somewhat rationalized or just ignored, so that the parodic allusiveness of the treatise form is lost. Shem’s annotations at line 2-3, clearly misinterpreted, have been italicized and re-absorbed by the main text. Shaun’s part – a series of names from Greek and Roman history, each associated to a statement in the main text in the form of an exam question – are didactically emphasized, while each statement is put into brackets in order to underline their quotation value. As a consequence, in Wilcock’s textual rearrangement the very sense of Shaun’s glossing is lost.

But the most destabilizing element in Wilcock’s version is the omission of Issy’s notes, so that the main voice of the chapter is silenced. Wilcock’s choice is probably dictated by the difficulty of the passages, humorous, mockingly funny and full of word-plays as they are.

Philological accuracy is, instead, one of the most prominent aspects of Schenoni’s version (2004: 306bis):

The partition and types of the original are carefully reproduced; the text is entirely translated, including footnotes and marginal annotations. Schenoni’s “fundamental honesty” (Bollettieri Bosinelli 1990: 151) is visible at every level: he does not simplify the source text either at the level of meaning or at the level of structure and visual effect. The presence of the original in parallel, on the left-hand page, seems to reinforce in the reader the impression of philological rigour conveyed by the translation.

As for Wilcock’s translating strategy, he seems to be more concerned with making the plot clear than with re-creating Joyce’s verbal architectures. The expressiveness and multilingual facets of the text are somewhat neglected. For instance, the rendering of the second sentence (“Ma perché diacono indugiano?”, “what the devil are they waiting for?”) reveals an inclination to simplify and condense the text, thus reducing Joyce’s puns and references to a minimum (“perché diacono” refers to the Italian perché diavolo “why the devil”).[7] However, Wilcock is quite successful when dealing with Joyce’s alliterative sentence course, as in the fourth sentence: “Stufi stufi stufi stufi stufi studiavimus” (for “Steady steady steady steady steady studiavimus”), which seems to be more effective, despite its semantic shift (stufi  means “fed up”), than Schenoni’s rendering (“Tanti tanti tanti tanti tanti studiavimus”).

Schenoni’s strategy is more oriented towards creativity and inventiveness. For him, sound and meaning are equally important. In this particular case, again sentence number two (“But while the dial are they doodling dawdling over the mugs and the grubs?” translated as “Ma che ceffo volo stanno doodledando dondolando sopra i copri e i cavoli?”), the phonic element tends to prevail over the semantic one. Hence the rendering of doodling dwadling as doodledando dondolando, where even the resource of the original language is exploited in a sound oriented translation. Schenoni abdicates to a complete Italianization of the text because he is more attracted by the rhythmical and phonic aspect of the sentence, despite the inevitable semantic loss his strategy may produce. This is also the case with another sentence: and writ our bit, rendered as scritto il nostro editto (“written our edict”) for mere euphonic reasons.

The strategy of creative deviation, which is typical of Schenoni,[8] is to be found elsewhere in the selected passage: over the mugs and the grubs, a clear intertextual reference to the The Mookse & the Gripes (as well as to Esopus’s tale The Fox and the Grapes), is rendered with sopra i copri e i cavoli (salvare capre e cavoli is an Italian idiom for “to have the best of both worlds”). Again, instead of a literal translation, Schenoni opts for a more inventive solution by replacing mugs and grubs with goats (It. capre) and cabbages (It. cavoli), which reproduces the effect of the original on the basis of a more allusive verbal material. Differently from Wilcock, Schenoni also maintains the reference encoded in another sentence of the passage: “Art, literature, politics, economy, chemistry, humanity” (ALP and HCE).

The translators’ different approach to Joyce’s language emerges quite clearly from their respective versions of the Nightletter, the closing lines of the chapter.

NIGHTLETTER
With our best youlldied greedings to Pep and Memmy and the old folkers below and beyant, wishing them all very merry Incarnations in this land of the livvey and plenty of preprosperousness through their coming  new yonks
from
jake, jack and little sousoucie
(the babes that mean too) [FW 308.16-25]

Schenoni’s re-creative approach gives rise to an explosion of inventions and language fireworks which end up with emphasizing, if possible, the comic effect of the original:

LETTERINA NOTTURNA

Con le più avide e mortalizie angurie a peperino e a mammana e ai vecchi folker dabbasso e dilà, con tanti voti a tutti di felicissime incarnazioni in questa landa dei livviventi e preprosperità a profusione per tutto il nuovo danno che verrà

da
jake, jack e dalla piccola sousoucie
(i bimbi che dicono davvero)[9]

Not only does Schenoni keep to the text, retaining all the references contained in the original, but he also enriches the text with extra comic elements, as exemplified by the rendering of  youlldied greedings: “Con le più avide e mortalizie angurie”. Here, a new element is introduced, angurie “water-melons”, which paronomastically refers to the expected term auguri “greetings”. Since the pun greedings could not be reproduced in Italian, Schenoni decided not to extrapolate the greed reference (hence avide) and to invent a new pun. In other words, he “adopts a ‘repair’ strategy” (Bollettieri Bosinelli 1990: 153) which is meant to counterbalance the inevitable losses of the translinguistic process. Therefore, if something gets lost (literariness), something else is gained in terms of comic effect.

Schenoni’s insistence on the sound element of FW is evident in his rendering of the following passage: “Incarnations in this land of the livvey and plenty of preprosperousness”, especially if compared to Wilcock’s:

Lettera notturna
Con i nostri migliori vuoti di Mortale a Bebbo e Memma e agli altri che son al di sotto e al di là, augurando loro tutti tante felici Incarnazioni in questa terra dei livi e mucchi di reprospezioni
per gli Animi venturi,
da
Giacco, Ciacchi e la piccola Sousoucie
(i bimbi che non scherzano)

Schenoni’s livviventi is much more resonant than Wilcock’s livi, and also more consistent with the original. The emphasis is always on Joyce’s sensesound, as in the case of “plenty of preprosperousness”, which is turned into an equally highly alliterative “preprosperità a profusione”, an aspect Wilcock seems to neglect (“mucchi di reprospezioni”).

It has to be remembered, however, that Wilcock translated in the absence of annotations and critical studies (very few at the time). One cannot forget that between Wilcock’s and Schenoni’s translation there were more than forty years. A pioneer in this field, Wilcock was dealing with a text at that time considered untranslatable. At the same time, however, it has to be underlined that two different approaches to translation are at work in the two versions: one is characterized by a normalizing strategy, which implies an abdication on the part of the translator (this is the case with Wilcock, but also with Philippe Lavergne and Victor Ponzanco, who translated FW into French and Spanish); the other is marked by a creative approach to translation and implies a belief in the translatability of the text.

Conclusions

For the Italian literary system Schenoni’s translation of FW represents a factor of instability. First of all, because the choice of translating FW, a highly unstable, centrifugal text, untameable even in its own country (if one can speak of a country), foreignizing by definition, is itself a destabilizing (or rebellious) act. It is probably no chance that the publication of all of Schenoni’s translation (the first volume appeared in 1982; the second in 2002; the third in 2004; the fourth is still to come) was delayed for over 20 years: a very long time indeed.

Secondly, because Schenoni’s translation is “a demonstration that the Italian language – which we native speakers tend to consider rather rigid in its lexical, syntactical, and morphological constraints – can be re-invented and manipulated as well as English” (Bollettieri Bosinelli 1990: 151). The task of translations, like that of literature, is to “keep the language fit” (Eco 1978). The Italian translation of FW not only keeps the language fit, but also reasserts, by way of expansion, the barriers of the Italian language.[10]

Moreover, Schenoni’s work expands the limits themselves of translation. By calling attention to the language and to the difference in language, the translator makes himself visible.[11] Translation thus becomes an act of cooperation between the author and his translator, who can call himself an artist, a creator, or, as Schenoni does, a poet.

References

Benjamin, Walter (2000). “The Task of the Translator”, in Venuti ed. (2000), 15-25.

Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria (1978). “James Joyce: Raccontano la storia…”, Paragone, 3.XXIX (April 1978), 94-98.

Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria  (1990). “Beyond Translation: Italian Re-writing of Finnegans Wake”, Joyce Studies Annual, I, 142-61.

Campbell, Joseph – Robinson, Henry Morton (1947). A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake, London: Faber.

Celati, Gianni (1972). “Traduzioni di linguaggi inventati”, Il Caffè, 19.3-4 (1972), 26-30.

Diacono, Mario (1961). “Da Finnegan’s Wake di James Joyce (107-108)”, Napoli: Colonnese 1970.

Diacono, Mario (1962a). Denomisegninatura, Roma: EX.

Diacono, Mario (1962b). “Piccadillinger Square où la métaérotique mil” in Quaderno, 2 (March-April), ed. by M. Diacono, 9-11.

Eco, Umberto (1978). “Come si dice in italiano tumptytumtoes?”, L’Espresso, 21.XXIV, 28 May 1978, 74- 81.

Eco, Umberto (1989). The Middle Ages of James Joyce: The Aesthetics of Chaosmos, London: Hutchinson Radius (translation of Le poetiche di Joyce, Milano: Bompiani, 1962).

Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978). “The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem”, in James Holmes – J. Lambert – R. van den Broek (eds.), Literature and Translation, Leuven 1978, 117-27.

Giuliani, Alfredo (1986). Versi e nonversi, Milano: Feltrinelli.

Gramigna, Giuliano (1978). Il gran trucco, Milano: Rizzoli.

Gramigna, Giuliano (1980). Es-O-Es, Milano: Società di Poesia.

Joyce, James (1940a). “Anna Livia Plurabella”, trans. by Nino Frank, Prospettive, 2 (15 February 1940), 13-15.

Joyce, James (1940b). “I fiumi scorrono”, Prospettive, 11-12 (15 December 1940), 14-16.

Joyce, James (1960). Ulisse, trans. by Giulio de Angelis, Milano: Mondadori 1982.

Joyce, James (1982). Finnegans Wake. H.C.E., trans. by Luigi Schenoni, Milano: Mondadori.

Melchiori, Giorgio (1982). “Introduzione”, in James Joyce, Finnegans Wake. H.C.E., trans. by Luigi Schenoni, Milano: Mondadori, ix-liii.

Risset, Jacqueline (1994). “Joyce et la poésie italienne contemporaine”, in James Joyce 3: Joyce et l’Italie. Special Issue of La Revue des Lettres Modernes, ed. Claude Jacquet and Jean-Michel Rabaté, Paris: Lettres Modernes, 155-60.

Ruggieri, Franca, ed. (2003). Romantic Joyce, Joyce Studies in Italy, 8. Roma: Bulzoni.

Schenoni, Luigi (1977). “Mutt & Jute” and “O foenix culprit”, Carte segrete, 11.35 (1977), 36-47.

Schenoni, Luigi (1979). “Finnegans Wake 55.03-62.25”, Carte segrete, 13.45-46 (1979), 21-36.

Schenoni, Luigi (1982a). “Cominciai a quattro anni”, Corriere della Sera, 27 June 1982,  11.

Schenoni, Luigi (1984). “Dai Dubliners a Finnegans Wake: problemi di traduzione”, Annali della facoltà di lingue e letterature straniere dell’Università di Bari, V.1-2, 1984, 117-32.

Schenoni, Luigi (2002). “Nel suonsenso di Joyce. Intervista a Luigi Schenoni”, interview by Ilaria Drago, http://www.tribuastratte.it/Interviste/schenoni.htm.

Schenoni, Luigi (2003). “Una lunga storiella”, in Ruggieri 2003, 217-25.

Schenoni, Luigi (2004). “Intorno a Joyce”, http://www.transfinito.net/article.php3?id_article=319.

Slote, Sam (2004). “‘Après mot le déluge’ 2: Literary and Theoretical Responses to Joyce in France”. In The Reception of James Joyce in Europe, volume 2, eds. Geert Lernout and Wim Van Mierlo, London: Continuum, 382–410.

Tindall, William York (1969). A Reader’s Guide to Finnegans Wake, London: Thames and Hudson.

Toti, Gianni (1977). Il padrone assoluto, Milano: Feltrinelli.

Venuti, Lawrence (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility, Routledge: New York and London.

Venuti,  Lawrence, ed. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader, New York and London: Routledge.

Viviani, Cesare (1977). Piumana, Milano: Guanda.

Wilcock,  Rodolfo (1961). “Frammenti scelti dalla Veglia di Finnegan”, in Tutte le opere di James Joyce, ed. Giacomo Debenedetti, vol. iii, Milano: Mondadori, 1129-74.