Reviews

139

andas anemblemof animate form. It is aninterestingcase: Paterson’s poemis lovelyandcoherent initself, but seems to have gonefurther thanit neededtofindits ‘owncourse’. In fact, ‘TheSarcophagiinRome’, initsfirsthalfatleast, ismore of animitationinRobert Lowell’s sensethanpracticallyany otherpoeminthebook, takingtheoriginal moreasapointof departurethanasa‘detailedgroundplanandelevation’ forits ‘vernacular architecture’, as Patersondefines the workof the version. Butnone ofthismattersmuch, becausePaterson haswritten a beautifulbook. Rilke’spoems have neverbeenbrought across asconvincingly; nexttoPaterson’s, otherversionslackalifeof their own. Unlike Paterson’s, however, many are published with parallel text, so are perhaps not seeking the kind of self-sufficiency he wants. But it’s doubtful they thus serve Rilkebetter, particularlyas Patersonmanages tokeeppretty closetothesurfacesensewhilelettinghis poems maketheir owncoherence. Take the last line of the first sonnet, crucial becauseit opensup theOrphicspaceofthecollection.Paterson has: ‘todaythetemplerisesintheirhearing’. Thelineliterally meanssomethinglike‘there[orthen]youcreatedtemplesfor theminthe hearing’ (daschufstduihnenTempelimGehöör). Gehöör is muchmoreconcretethanEnglish ‘hearing’. Paterson’slineis wonderfullycleanandclear comparedto Leishman’s (‘youbuilt themtemplesintheirsenseof sound’) orStephenCohn’s(‘you built themtheir ownTemples of theEar!’). StephenMitchell has‘youbuiltatempledeepinsidetheirhearing’, andEdward Snow, whoseversions Patersonacknowledges for their clarity, ‘youbuilttemplesforthemintheirhearing’. Paterson’suseof ‘rises’ in the middle of his line is a crucial improvement, capturingtheactive, becomingsenseof schufst inaway‘built’ cannot, asitsenergypushesoninto‘intheirhearing’, making aspaceofitbyfillingit. Here, thetempleisbuilt, andrebuilt ateachreading. Animportantaspectof theoriginal Rilkeisitsprovisional, on-the-wingfeel. The poems growout of one another, they