Remembering Michael Hartnett: A Language Seldom Spoken, edited by John McDonagh and Stephen

Newman. Dublin: Four Courts Press, pages !"#$%

Both more than a language and no more of a language:
Michael Hartnett and the Politics of Translation.
&'oth more than a language and no more o( a language): Michael *artnett and the Politics o(
+ranslation) in Remembering Michael Hartnett: A Language Seldom Spoken, edited by John
McDonagh and Stephen Newman. Dublin: Four Courts Press, pages !"#$%
,ugene -)'rien
5 keywords
Derrida, *artnett, translation, politics, language
Abstract
+his essay loo.s at the politics o( translation through a speci(ic (ocus on the poetry, in /rish and in
,nglish, o( Michael *artnett. /t suggests a politics o( translation that is emancipatory and creati0e,
and deconstructs traditional hierarchies o( source and target languages
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
-n the rear co0er o( Translations 2 A Selection, the point is made that &(or most o( his li(e Michael
*artnett (orded the languages and cultures o( places and ages). /n this 0olume, complimenting
*artnett)s already published translations o( the /rish poets Daibhi 3 'ruadair, P4draig *aic5ad,
6odhgh4n 3 7athaille and Nuala N8 Dhomhnaill, there are translations (rom -ld, Middle and
Modern /rish, 9erman, Chinese, :atin, :at0ian and Spanish. +he authors translated include :ao#t;u,
Si.ong +u, Catullus, 9iolla 'righde Mac Con Midhe, 'rian Mac 9iolla Ph4draig, Daibh8 3
# #
'ruadair, 6odhag4n 3 7athaille, Se4n 3 Morch< 74ith8neach, ,oghan 7ua 3 S<illeabh4in, *einrich
*eine, Frederico 9arc8a :orca, *orace, /mants =eidonis, Nuala N8 Dhomhnaill and *artnett himsel(.
+his cosmopolitan list ma.es clear the 0alue that *artnett placed on translation o( all sorts. *is sel(
deprecating remar., in the introduction to Haicad on the sub>ect o( translation pro0ide an interesting
contrast between his 0iews o( translation and what might be deemed the pre0ailing 0iew:
/ ha0e tried to show the 0ariety o( *aic5ad)s metres and the 0ariety o( his themes. / ha0e
not, o( course, caught the beauty o( his /rish. Some o( the close#lipped /rish#spea.ing
writers o( today do not appro0e o( translations (rom the language: it is as i( they do not
wish to share poets they do not read themsel0es. 6 translation is, at best, an illuminating
(ootnote to the original? and / hope that readers o( this boo. will not be lead away (rom,
but towards the real *aic5ad.

/( we return to the di0erse list o( authors in his Translations boo.,

@
and to his other published
translations, it would seem that *artnett spend an inordinate amount o( time creating &illuminating
(ootnotes) to other writers. / would suggest that this term is, in e((ect, a rhetorical and suasi0e de0ice
on the part o( *artnett, in order to appease the &close#lipped) cabal who would decry his wor.
immediately. 'y pro((ering the oli0e branch o( de(erring to the primacy o( the original, *artnett was
deliberately under0aluing the epistemological status o( his translations. / (urther suggest that on
closer reading, this Auotation will be (ound to deconstruct what it seems to say, and (unctions instead,
to underline the emancipatory potential o( *artnett)s politics o( translation.
9i0en his tremendous output, it becomes clear that there is more at sta.e (or *artnett in terms o( the
0alue o( translation within his oeuvre than he is indicating, and in this chapter, / will demonstrate the
power(ul use to which he puts translation as he attempts to create a cosmopolitan world0iew within
which the /rish language and literature can ta.e its place. /ndeed, one could eBtrapolate (rom this
literary endea0our, a politics o( translation wherein the (low (rom language to language is emblematic
# @ #
o( a new order o( literary politics with particular re(erence to the place o( /rish poetry, whether that
poetry be written in /rish or ,nglish.
/n this conteBt, it is interesting to loo. at the wor. o( JacAues Derrida on the issue o( language and
translation. Criting in Monolingualism of the Other? or, The rosthesis of Origin, Derrida ma.es
what seems to be a statement that is the total opposite o( *artnett)s initial Auotation:
2 Ce only e0er spea. one languageD
Eyes, butF
2 Ce ne0er spea. only one language.
G
/n this seemingly gnomic assertion, Derrida is bringing to bare his ideas on the need to interrogate
notions o( identity, monolingualism, (undamentalism, and ownership o( language and culture. +o see
language as static organisms or as the possessors o( a chosen (ew is to de#ontologi;e what languages
are 2 modes o( communication between sel( and other, structures that preceded us, into which we are
inserted, and which will continue long a(ter we are gone. Crucially, these structures are constantly
changing, and gi0en the increasingly globali;ed nature o( the world, languages are changing e0er
more Auic.ly.
:ater in the same essay, Derrida ma.es the point that &e0ery culture institutes itsel( through the
unilateral imposition o( some politics o( language. Mastery begins, as we .now, through the power
o( naming, o( imposing and legitimating appellations).
!
+his is precisely what *artnett was re(erring
to in terms o( his original 2 translation binarism, and the ad>ecti0e &thin#lipped) emblematised this
imposition o( a politics o( language. *ere, /rish was the pure original, and the best one could hope
(or (rom a translation would be that it would add some small Aualia o( understanding. More
# G #
importantly, howe0er, *artnett was deliberately underplaying the status o( the translation at an iconic
le0el 2 the original /rish poem would appear on a page, while the translation was symbolised as a
(ootnote, an eBplicatory de0ice, a supplement to the original, which in no way could be seen as
threatening that original. +he iconicity o( originalHin(erior copy is (urther (ore grounded by the (act
that (ootnotes are usually printed in a smaller (ont, with the lines being single, as opposed to double,
spaced.
6t the core o( the politics o( translation, then are the twin issues o( linguistic ownership Ethis is our
language and we don)t want it diluted or adulterated into another languageF and that o( purity Eonly
our language can con0ey the purity o( our identity, our culture, our ideologyF. *ere again, Derrida
ma.es a telling point.
'ut (or this 0ery reason, the monolingualism o( the other means another thing, which will
be re0ealed little by little: that in any case we spea. only one language 2 and, that we do
not o!n it. Ce only e0er spea. one language 2 and, since it returns to the other, it eBists
asymmetrically, always (or the other, (rom the other, .ept by the other. Coming (rom the
other, remaining with the other, and returning to the other.
$
/t would seem that here, too, Derrida is at odds with *artnett, and yet, i( we loo. closely at *artnett)s
Auote, we will (ind that all is not as it seems. *e ma.es the point, we remember, that: &IsJome o( the
close#lipped /rish#spea.ing writers o( today do not appro0e o( translations (rom the language: it is as
i( they do not wish to share poets they do not read themsel0es).
"
+he interesting words here are &do
not read themsel0es). 6t an initial reading, it would seem that these writers want to hoard the pearls
o( their own tradition and not share them or dilute their linguistic purity. *owe0er, in actuality,
*artnett is saying that these writers &do not read) the wor.s in the original. Not to read poems is to
allow them, and their tradition to die, and in a deconstructi0e re0ersal, *artnett is claiming that to
# ! #
lea0e these wor.s unread is to condemn the tradition to silence 2 and the imagery o( &close#lipped)
underlines this. +o spea. through closed lips is a contradiction in terms? in (act these so#called
purists are condemning their supposedly#lo0ed tradition to silence and ultimate death 2 as it is only
through communication that these poems can li0e. /ronically, howe0er, as Derrida has noted in the
pre0ious Auotation, to spea. is to open up language to the other, and to gi0e up any sense o( mastery.
/t is also to gi0e up any binary opposition between a hegemonic original and a supplementary
translation.
Peggy Kamu(, in her introductory notes to a selected passage (rom Derrida)s &Des +ours de 'abel),
L
ma.es the (ollowing interesting comments with regard to deconstructi0e perspecti0es on translation
theory.
translation has always implied a secondary operation coming a(ter the original. +he
deconstruction o( this concept displaces that order with the almost unthin.able notion
Ealmost unthin.able because it points to the 0ery limits o( thin.ingF o( an originary
translation be(ore the possibility o( any distinction between original and translation. 'ut
deconstruction does not only en>oin us to thin. translation di((erently, beyond the
con(ines o( its strict sense, that is, translation o( thought (rom one language to another. /t
also displays the mo0ement o( the trans 2 translation, trans(erence, transport,
trans(ormation 2 as the 0ery mo0ement o( thought between points o( origin and arri0al
that are always being de(erred, di((ered one by the other.
M

/ would argue that this is precisely what Michael *artnett is attempting in his own translations, an
aim (ar more sub0ersi0e o( the close#lipped orthodoBy than he would o0ertly suggest. +o illustrate
this, / would li.e to loo. at some eBamples (rom his collection A "ecklace of #rens.
# $ #
+his collection is central to *artnett)s pro>ect as it is here, in the title poem, that he describes a 0atic
enculturation into the art and cra(t o( poetry. *e describes in this poem how as a young boy, he
(ound a nest o( wrens whose &chirping young):
D)5irigh siad 2 is thuirling 7ose and re#alighted
6r8s ar m)ucht 6round my nec.
-rmsa bh8 muincle cl<imh Made in the wet meadow
Sa mhNinear (liuch. 6 (eather nec.let.
%
+he climactic lines o( the poem tell us that &this was when the cra(t came H which demands respect).
O
So the primacy o( this collection to what he saw as his poetic 0ocation is clear, and in this regard, the
issue o( translation looms large and it is an issue which stri.es the reader graphematically on opening
the boo..
6s is clear (rom the abo0e Auotation, in this collection, the /rish teBt and the translation appear
opposite each other across two pages. /n each case, the adeAuation between the two languages is set
out on a line by line basis. 9i0en that in our graphematic culture, we read (rom le(t to right, it would
seem that this process enacts the primacy o( *artnett)s initial Auotation, pri0ileging the original o0er
the translation. So, as we read, (or eBample, in &+he *are):
Maith dom 5, a chail8n. Forgi0e me, girl.
N8 raibh aon scian agam / had no .ni(e
Chun do chlann a sh4bh4il +o cut your children (ree
Maith dom 5. Forgi0e me.

+he direct translation o( the /rish third line is &to sa0e your (amily) Im$ translationJ, while the
,nglish 0ersion chooses &to cut your children (ree). 9i0en the line#by#line accuracy o( *artnett)s
translations, this is an imaginati0e and linguistic choice, as opposed to any .ind o( in(elicity. +he
other three lines o( this stan;a translate word (or word, so *artnett, (ar (rom creating an illuminating
# " #
(ootnote, is in actuality, creating a di((erent meaning across the page, and across linguistic systems.
Chere the &original) meaning lies is 0ery much a moot point, and here, *artnett comes 0ery close to
Derrida)s ideas on the polysemic power o( translation.
/s this not a locus classicus o( the idea o( translation as a power(ul (orce (or deconstructing
possessi0e imperati0es o( ideologyP /ndeed, Derrida has made deconstruction and translation
synonymous, deconstruction, he says, consists:
only o( trans(erence, and o( a thin.ing through o( trans(erence, in all the senses that this
word acAuires in more than one language, and (irst o( all that o( the trans(erence between
languages. /( / had to ris. a single de(inition o( deconstruction, one as brie(, elliptical and
economical as a password, / would say simply and without o0erstatement: plus d%une
langue 2 both more than a language and no more o( a language.
@
Strictu sensu, this new le0el o( meaning is only a0ailable to a reader who has some .nowledge o( the
/rish language to begin with, as only then will the change in the line become clear. +hus, instead o(
>ust going (rom original to translation in a le(t to right motion across the page, the reader is now
liberated /t is possible to (lic. bac. and (orth across the page (rom the /rish language original to the
,nglish translation, with meaning residing in the process o( trans(erence. Paul de Man spea.s o( this
process in the (ollowing terms, seeing translation as putting:
the original in motion, to de#canoni;e the original, gi0ing it a mo0ement which is a
mo0ement o( disintegration, o( (ragmentation. +his mo0ement o( the original is a
wandering, an errance, a .ind o( permanent eBile i( you wish, but it is not really an eBile,
(or there is no homeland, nothing (rom which one has been eBiled.
G
# L #
/n other words, meaning eBists in the act o( reading and writing, it is an intersub>ecti0e construct
made by the spea.ing sel( and the listening other, who in turn interprets the meaning in polysemic
ways.
+his process o( altered meanings can also be (ound in &Strained Mind), where increasingly (ractured
images (rom a mind under strain are held together by the almost mantra#li.e repetition, in each
alternate line o( &cogar sa ch<inne, cogar sa ch<inne),
!
which is directly translated across the page as
&tal. in the corner, tal. in the corner).
$
+his process is repeated across se0enteen lines, but in the
eighteenth repetition, in the (inal line o( the poem, there is a signi(icant change:
cogar sa ch<inne, cogar sa ch<inne. +al. in the corner tal. tal..
"
+he /rish 0ersion o( the poem ends as it begun, with this linguistic mantra repeated ad infinitum: &tal.
in the corner, tal. in the corner) Im$ translationJ? howe0er in the ,nglish translation, the punctuating
comma is remo0ed, and thereby the symmetry o( signi(ier and signi(ied in the /rish 0ersion is altered.
/n this 0ersion, the mantra was inescapable? there is no way out o( what has become a closed poetic
system. /n the ,nglish 0ersion, howe0er, the (inal line appears to o((er a way out, either to some
(orm o( (urther dialogue which allows (or mo0ement out o( that corner o( the paranoid consciousness,
or else in terms o( a (urther dialogue which can brea. out o( the binary patterning which structures
the poem. /n other words, in the ,nglish 0ersion, there is a possibility o( mo0ement, either positi0e
or negati0e, (rom this closed system, and as such, it ma.es the translation almost a di((erent poem,
and (ar (rom merely a (ootnote. +he translation o( the (inal &corner) into &tal.) alters noun to 0erb,
with resultant possibilities. Meaning eBists in the mo0ement between 0ersions, languages and poems?
(or *artnett, the meaning is clearly liminal and hybrid.
# M #
+he same structure is to be (ound in &Poem (or Niall, L) where once again, the mo0ement o( the
translation allows (or di((erent le0els o( meaning. /n this poem, *artnett is o((ering ad0ice to his son,
loo.ing at di((erent aspects o( the boy)s (uture li(e, and eBhorting him to &be happy but be tough).
L
*owe0er, again, in the (inal line, we see the translation and hybridity o( meaning.
'eidh m5 ann is t< i d)(hear Ng 2 / will be there as you grow older 2
3l(ad pNrtar leatsa (Ns 6nd some day /)ll buy you porter.
M

+he literal translation o( the /rish lines is as (ollows: &/ will be there when you are a young man H /
will drin. porter with you yet) Im$ translationJ? the actual translation stresses the unconscious
imperati0e towards the retention o( some (orm o( parental power in terms o( the (ather actually
paying (or the drin.. *ere there is a deconstruction o( what on the sur(ace is ritual o( adult male#
bonding? at another intra#linguistic le0el, the (ather is still in the power position, at least in his own
mind. 6t some le0el, Niall will be (iBed in his mind at the age o( se0en.
*artnett)s use o( translation, as we ha0e seen, stresses the importance o( the genre, especially in an
/rish conteBt. *ere, translation is de(ined 0ery broadly, and one is reminded o( the de(inition o(
translation o((ered by +erry ,agleton, which also espouses diffrance, and which sees all teBts as
being in the process o( an ongoing process o( translation:
,0ery teBt is a set o( determinate trans(ormations o( other, preceding and surrounding
teBts o( which it may not e0en be consciously aware? it is within, against and across these
other teBts that the poem emerges into being. 6nd these other teBts are, in their turn,
&tissues) o( such pre#eBistent teBtual elements, which can ne0er be unra0elled bac. to
some primordial moment o( &origin).
%

# % #
/ thin. that *artnett)s speci(ic use o( translations in the poems discussed underlines the importance o(
translation as a poetic de0ice. ,thically, he espouses a pluralist and open dialogue with the other, and
linguistically, he is clearly o( the 0iew that language is open, organic and operates most (ully when in
dialogue with itsel(, and with other languages.
6t a structural le0el, as well as a thematic one, this is true o( his well#.nown teBt &nchicore Haiku.
*ere the classic Japanese 0erse (orm o( *ai.u, a minimalist structure in which the poet has se0enteen
syllables or (ewer in which to eBpress an eBperience, is transposed to the Dublin area o( /nchicore,
where *artnett li0ed (or a number o( years. +his (orm is Auite speci(ic, usually each poem has three
lines, with a template o( $#L#$ syllable structure. /deally, each poem should be read aloud in one
breath, there is an a0oidance o( rhyme, there is some (orm o( >uBtaposition, with two elements or
lines indirectly related to the third line, a techniAue which pro0ides a metaphorical adeAuation in the
poem. Chat is achie0ed in this translation#dri0en eBperiment are ML poems, each depicting 0arious
snatches o( eBperience (rom *artnett)s interaction with /nchicore. Displaced (rom his nati0e Cest
:imeric., he is able to achie0e that aesthetic distance that is one o( the bene(its o( translation, on his
own li(e and eBperience, and one o( the most Auoted o( these *ai.u (oregrounds, yet again, the
inter(usion o( /rish and ,nglish:
My ,nglish dam bursts
6nd out stroll all my bastards
/rish sha.es its head.
@O
+he notion o( hybridity n language is signi(ied in the possessi0e use o( &my bastards) and the almost
con(lictual role o( /rish and ,nglish in his mentalite is clear in this stan;a. +his is a gap that can
only be bridged by translation. /t is this ongoing notion o( translation that has mar.ed the themes
# O #
(ound in his wor., and it is with a ringing poetic assertion about the 0ery nature o( this interaction
that this chapter will close.
6s a (inal eBample, / would li.e to loo. at what is (or many *artnett)s eBemplary teBt, &6 Farewell to
,nglish). +his poem has become something o( a cultural touchstone. Published in %L$, it is an
elegy (or the death o( the /rish language and culture in a world (ull o( &0acuumcleaner minds).
@
*artnett sets out his stall and tells us that he will no longer write in ,nglish, but will hence(orth write
in /rish. :i.e his already cited comment on translation, the end o( this poem would seem to broo. no
interpretation:
/ ha0e made my choice and lea0e with little weeping
/ ha0e come with meagre 0oice
+o court the language o( my people.
@@
*owe0er, a hermeneutic eBamination o( the conteBt o( this resonant phrase will unco0er a le0el o(
nuance and compleBity that parallels our earlier eBamination o( those 0iews on translation. +he
,nglish that he eBamines in the poem is, we might eBpect, the narrow discourse o( colonial mastery
&the gra0el o( 6nglo#SaBon).
@G
+he poem encompasses both the anger o( the colonised sub>ect: &what
was / doing with these (oreign wordsP), and the elegiac sense o( loss o( his nati0e language, a loss
that is enunciated in the anaphoric &m'nla, simh, dubhfholtach, 'lainn, caoin).
@!
*owe0er, there is
also a sharp sense o( irony, as, through the eBtended metaphor o( coo.ing, he comments on the (usion
and intersection o( the two languages. Section G is composed o( two sentences, both creati0e o( this
metaphor o( coo.ing. /n the (irst, &Che( Qeats) is praised (or his ability to &raise mere stew to a
glorious height), because he was able to blend the ingredients into a coherent miBture which was
&care(ully stirred in to get the (la0our right).
@$
+his is in star. contrast to &IoJur commis#che(s) who
# #
merely &add to a simple 6nglo#SaBon stoc.), and *artnett goes on to list the stilted ingredients o(
&Cuchulainn)s marrow bones)? a &dash o( 3 7athaille) and a &glass o( uni0ersity hic#haec#hoc) which
culminate in &the celebrated 6nglo#/rish stew).
@"
+he essential di((erence here is that (luidity o( linguistic interaction which *artnett saw as possible
though translation is not operati0e here. /nstead, we see a stilted &stew) where there is no interaction
or trans(ormation across any o( the three languages: /rish, ,nglish or :atin. +he necessary space o(
writing, that gap with which we ha0e (ound *artnett to be so interested, is not to be (ound in the type
o( writing he satiri;es here. For *artnett, as (or *omi 'habha, translation is a &place o( hybridity)
where the (inal source o( meaning is &neither the one nor the other) Iitalics originalJ.
@L
+he ongoing
play o( multilinguistic signi(iers in the poem is paradigmatic o( this play o( diffrance, which
ensures, as de Man obser0es that &meaning is always displaced with regard to the meaning it ideally
intended 2 that meaning is ne0er reached).
@M
+he use o( &displaced) is pertinent here. /n translation, the
&meaning) passes (rom language to language, there is little or no re(erential dimension brought into
play, and so, the posited linguistic repossession o( the place seemingly attempted by the Auasi#
translations at the beginning o( each poem, is in (act dismembered and disarticulated by the processes
o( language itsel(. /ndeed, translation, as set out in A "ecklace of #rens, would seem to be endemic
to *artnett)s 0iew o( poetry, as he puts it &their talons le(t on me H scars not healed yet).
@%

*ence &6 Farewell to ,nglish) can be read simplistically as a saying goodbye to writing or publishing
in the ,nglish language. *owe0er, in the light o( the politics o( translation that we ha0e been
eBploring in this article, this poem can also be read as a seminal part o( this pro>ect, as he in0o.es a
blessing on a new linguistic >ourney which will usher in a new 0ersion o( ,nglish, a 0ersion
underwritten by the types o( translation which ha0e been the sub>ect o( this chapter. +his reading o(
the title is 0alidated by the O(ford )nglish *ictionar$, which de(ines the term as &an eBpression o(
# @ #
good wishes at the parting o( (riends, originally addressed to the one setting (orth). *ere the good
wishes are plain in the &,nglish) that *artnett wrote in the wa.e o( this poem 2 an ,nglish that has
been shot through at all le0els, with the discourses o( its linguistic others. /ndeed, the metaphor o(
&setting (orth) is continued in the root meaning o( &translate) itsel(. +his is a combination o( &trans)
and &(erre) meaning &to carry across), and this sense o( mo0ement and trans(er is strong in section $,
where he cites the authors whom he (ound &in ,nglish nets), and to whom he must now say (arewell:
My :orca holding out his arms
+o lo0e the beauty o( his bullets
Pasternac. who outli0ed Stalin
6nd died because o( lesser beasts.
GO
+his pan#,uropean tradition o( literature is a tradition in which *artnett (eels at home. Criting in the
introduction to his boo. o( translations o( the wor. o( D4ibhi -)'ruadair, *artnett tells o( how he
in0ented his own picture o( -)'ruadair
G
and this is a resonant image o( his attitude to the ,nglish
language, /rish culture and language and his own 0iew o( his role as a poet. /n a way, *artnett)s
,nglish is itsel( a translation, a series o( mo0ements between di0erse in(luences, which enact
Derrida)s idea o( the mo0ement o( the trans 2 translation, trans(erence, transport, trans(ormation 2 as
the 0ery mo0ement o( thought between points o( origin and arri0al that are always being de(erred,
di((ered one by the other. /n essence, this is *artnett)s politics o( translation? the ,nglish to which he
wishes well is &both more than a language and no more o( a language).
Endnotes:

*artnett, Michael, Haicad, -ldcastle, Meath E%%GF, p. G.

@
*artnett, Michael, Translations: A Selection, edited by Peter Fallon -ldcastle, Meath E@OOGF passim.
G
Derrida, JacAues, Monolingualism of the Other? or, The rosthesis of Origin, translated by Patric. Mensah
Cali(ornia E%%"F, p. O.
!
Monolingualism of the Other, p. G%.
$
Monolingualism of the Other, p. !O.
"
Haicad, p. @.
L
Kamu(, Peggy EedF A *errida Reader: +et!een the +linds, *emel *empsted E%%F, pp. @!#@!@.
M
A *errida Reader, p. @!@.
# G #
%
*artnett, Michael, A "ecklace of #rens: Selected oems in &rish !ith )nglish +ranslations by the 6uthor,
-ldcastle, Meath E%MLF, pp. M#%.
O
"ecklace of #rens, p.%

"ecklace of #rens, p..

@
Derrida, JacAues, Mmoires: -or aul de Man, translated by Cecile :indsay, Jonathan Culler and ,duardo
Cada0a. 7e0ised edition? (irst published %M". New Qor. E%M%F, pp. !#$.
G
de Man, Paul, The Resistance to Theor$, +heory and *istory o( :iterature, Rolume GG. Minneapolis, E%M"F, p.
%@.
!
"ecklace of #rens, p. GM.
$
"ecklace of #rens, p.G%.
"
"ecklace of #rens, pp. GM#G%.
L
"ecklace of #rens, p. !$.
M
"ecklace of #rens, pp. !!#!$.
%
,agleton, +erry, &+ranslation and +rans(ormation), Stand, S/S EGF %LL, L@#LL, page L!.
@O
*artnett, Michael, &nchicore Haiku. First published %M$ 7a0en 6rts 'oo.s. Dublin E%%%F, p. %.
@
*artnett, Michael, A -are!ell to )nglish EFirst published %L$F. -ldcastle, Meath: 9allery Press, %LM, page
M!.
@@
-are!ell to )nglish, page M!.
@G
-are!ell to )nglish, page LM.
@!
-are!ell to )nglish, page LM.
@$
-are!ell to )nglish, page MO.
@"
-are!ell to )nglish, page MO.
@L
'habha, *omi K. E%%!F The Location of .ulture. :ondon: 7outledge, %%!, page @$.
@M
Resistance to Theor$, page %.
@%
"ecklace of #rens, page %.
GO
-are!ell to )nglish, page M@.
G
*artnett, Michael E%M$F / +ruadair: Selected poems of *'ibh0 / +ruadair translated and introduced by
Michael *artnett. -ldcastle, Meath: 9allery Press E%M$F, p. %.
# ! #

@
G
!
$
"
L
M
%
O

@
G
!
$
"
L
M
%
@O
@
@@
@G
@!
@$
@"
@L
@M
@%
GO
G