Right, my original version didn’t have “early.” I’ve fixed that.

Yes, that’s the quandary I’m in, and the anomalous IP line in my first version tipped me in favor of the new one.

Well, if you’re really, really interested, there are these too:

https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=35902
https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=35881
https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=35757

I don’t advertise the latter two, because the poems are seriously twisted.

Carl, I think your translation of Tsvetaeva is lovely. I have read that poem of hers in a different translation, and yours is much better in my opinion. (Do you have plans to publish a collection of your translations of Russian poets? If you ever do, I would certainly be interested!)

Going back to Zenkevich, I meant to add earlier that I definitely do put stress on the first syllable of "baptized". I also noticed the conventionality of sirens that "wail" as opposed to the crib. "Bawl" is an improvement there, I think.

Like Matt, I'm not crazy about "with a pang" - it sounds a little too much like padding for the sake of rhyme and meter. What about "the soul's anxieties close in"? As in, the anxieties are encroaching on the soul? It's not completely literal, but it would give you a slant rhyme with "pan."

I’m so happy you liked it, Hilary. It may be Tsvetaeva’s best-loved poem. It was the first of hers I read many years ago and has always stayed with me. As for the collection, I’m taking preorders for the year 2043 or so.

I still like “pang,” but if the line gets a rewrite—and I will have to consider it—the new rhyme for “pan” should probably be “again,” since that word is actually in the Russian.

Thanks again, Hilary! There’s one more Zenkevich that I haven’t posted, so do stop by later in the week.

Well, "again" would be fine. Maybe "The soul suffers anxieties again" or something along those lines? I don't know, but I would keep playing with it.

If "again" works for you, then how about?:

Now the soul frets anxiously again

"Fret" gives you repine -- in English at least. Though from your list of synonyms earlier, maybe "yearns" would fit it better? The line then seems closer to the crib. The repining is clear, which I don't think it is in the current version, and the recurrence (the "again") is now mentioned.

What the current line says seems unclear to me, which I guess is makes it seem awkwardly phrased and hence rhyme-driven. Either a pang -- a sudden pain or painful emotion -- coincides with the arrival of anxiety, or the anxiety arrives in the form of a pang. I'm more inclined to read the latter, because otherwise no candidate for the pang is suggested, and normally one is. Read this way, though, the repining is lost. If read as the former, I'm guessing at what it's a pang of. Several of usual suspects -- loss, sorrow, longing -- would work with "repine", but others like guilt, jealousy, hunger etc. don't.

-Matt

By popular demand, I’m trying out a new version of S4L1 which is more literally accurate, though I thought “pang” captured more of the spirit. It may grow on me. Thanks, Hilary and Matt, for your persistence.

I like it. I think it reads much more naturally now.

I'm with Hilary on this. It does read much more naturally to me. And "pines" is a good choice, I think.

Just looking again at this:

gloomy cesspools sunken underground.

Is "sunken" being used correctly here? It doesn't seem quite right to me. Isn't it an adjective e.g. "The sunken ship", "her sunken cheeks"? Here it seems more like it's being used as a verb (past participle). In which case, wouldn't it be "gloomy cesspools sunk underground"? Or as an adjective, "gloomy cesspools, sunken, underground" or "gloomy, sunken cesspools underground"?

-Matt

Matt, I pride myself on being a stickler for grammar, so it’s great when somebody (usually you) finds something that never entered my head. A little research tells me that “sunken” is an old past participle that’s used today primarily as an adjective. I think I could probably defend it as an adjective here: it’s not an aboveground cesspool that has sunk underground; but a cesspool that is and always has been sunken underground. That said, I did feel a little uneasy about this wording, though I couldn’t put my finger on it. Maybe it was your point of grammar or the redundancy or both. Anyway, what would you think about replacing it with something like “lurking”?

You could, but I'd be on you like a ton of bricks, or some other mixed metaphor :)

Is it correct to say that it's a "cesspool that is and always has been sunken underground"? Doesn't that just make "sunken" work like it a past participle again. It is sunken, sure. And it is underground. But is it "sunken underground"? Or is it actually "sunken and underground"?

I guess that test would be: how does it work if I substitute another adjective, e.g.:

"gloomy cesspits dismal underground"

in that case, I think we'd want a comma or two otherwise dismal feels like it's being used as a verb. (Or maybe not. I've been thinking about it too much now to get a clear sense of it!)

Anyway, I'm arguing this for the fun of it, since you're planning to change it anyway.

"lurking" certainly revolves the issue I think exists with the existing line: its now very clear what part of speech it is. And it jibes with "hidden". There's maybe also "buried", which also jibes with hidden. Though since "hidden" is already in the stanza, I guess "stinking" might be an option too. Or "feeding"?

Rereading this:

Hidden shamelessly from view, the slime
generated by the day is downed
sloppily by chomping, slurping swine:
gloomy cesspools sunken underground.

I realise that its not that clear which is figurative and which literal. Are they literal pigs that are being likened to cesspools? The colon structure would normally suggest that I think. Whereas in the crib it's made very clear that it's the other way around.

-Matt