POETS Day! Jorge Luis Borges as Translated by Richard Wilbur
“On the day before the burning of the Pyramid, the men who got down from their high horses scourged me with burning irons, to compel me to reveal the site of a buried treasure. Before my eyes they toppled the idol to the god, yet the god did not abandon me, and I held my silence through their tortures. They tore my flesh, they crushed me, they mutilated me, and then I awoke in this prison, which I will never leave alive.
– Jorge Luis Borges, “The Writing of the God”
That’s a terrible attitude. I should note that he didn’t despair and by the end of the story achieves an enlightenment which renders his physical circumstances moot, but POETS Day esteems escapism. Constricting circumstances shouldn’t be tolerated. Piss Off Early, Tomorrow’s Saturday. There’s an afternoon waiting to be played with.
***
I was reading from a book by Richard Wilbur and stumbled across Borges. There’s a song that’s played as part of the Easter Vigil Mass where the Fall is referred to as felix culpa, or “happy fault.” It’s probably proper theologese to say “blessed fault” but I was told “happy” long ago and it’s happy to me still. The idea is that, though regrettable, Adam and Eve’s disobedience allowed for the Redeemer. Good can come from bad.
Since high school, every time I’ve come across anything – essays, obituaries, especially short stories – written by Borges, I’m trapped. Whether he’s on our conceptions (“…it is easy to design hell, but it does not mitigate the admirable terror of its invention.”), rules regarding detective stories (“Also prohibited are hypnotism, telepathic hallucinations, portents, elixers with unknown effects, ingenious pseudoscientific tricks, and lucky charms.”), proper insults (“The famous camp bed under which the general won the battle.”), or dance (“To speak of the ‘fighting tango’ is not strong enough”) you’re witness to surprising attention. He considers vastly, dismisses with reason, and he’s funny.
The short stories draw you in with fraudulent encyclopedias that rewrite history, imagined infinities, damnable misinterpretations, and murderers playing arcanists. He never published longer than short fiction. When asked why he said that if he ever had an idea for a novel, he’d just write a review of the unwritten book and get all the ideas out that way. He does almost that in the story “Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” which is as funny a send up of Critical Theory as you’re likely to find and even funnier considering its inconvenient timing for the theorists.
J.K. Rowling is a master of chapter length. The next little bit is always just short enough to stay up a few minutes or to put off getting started on dinner. You can always read one more before putting the book down. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has a few copies from Borges on her shelf. Something happens that brings him back from my periphery and I end up reading multiple short stories or convincing essays that make me consider improbable activities like giving Virginia Woolf another chance. And I keep doing so for two or three days.
Amazon called him The Most Interesting Man in the World. Specifically, whoever composed the blurb for This Craft of Verse, a collection of Borges’s 1997-1968 Harvard lectures on poetry, wrote “Probably the best-read citizen of the globe in his day,” which is pretty much the same thing. That’s the felix part. What I was reading before the encounter is on the back burner for a bit, but that’s okay. I like my stints in the Borges trap.
I’d not read his poetry until last night. That may seem odd for a fan but I’m peculiar about translations. I want to trust the interlocuter before I spend my time. Richard Wilbur’s among the greatest of our post Eliot poets. Had I known he lent his talents to Borges’s I would have pounced. As it stands I have only the three of his translations, all of them sonnets, found in Wilbur’s 1989 Pulitzer winning New and Collected Poems.
Compass
Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)
trans. by Richard Wilbur (1921-2017)All things are words of some strange tongue, in thrall
To Someone, Something, who both day and night
Proceeds in endless gibberish to write
The history of the world. In that dark scrawlRome is set down, and Carthage, I, you, all,
And this is my being which escapes me quite,
My anguished life that’s cryptic, recondite,
And garbled as the tongues of Babel’s fall.Beyond the name there lies what has no name;
Today I have felt its shadow stir the aim
Of this blue needle, light and keen, whose sweepHomes to the utmost of the sea its love,
Suggestive of a watch in dreams, or of
Some bird, perhaps, who shifts a bit in sleep.
Mysteries; forces at play that are ancient, hidden, and unfathomable. This is of a piece with Borges’s short stories. I can’t speak to his poetic style in Spanish. Wilbur writes with elegance in all senses of the word: simplicity, dignity, and sophistication. I’d like to think that there was a similarity of temperament that drew Wilbur to this work, that he found a kindred around whose themes his preferences would serve. My ambitions in Spanish are rarely grander than getting directions to the bathroom or more hot sauce so I’ll have to rely on the opinion of others.
Compare the above to the same poem as translated by Robert Mezey.
A Compass
All things are words belonging to that language
In which Someone or Something, night and day,
Writes down the infinite babble that is, per se,
The history of the world. And in that hodgepodgeBoth Rome and Carthage, he and you and I,
My life that I don’t grasp, this painful load
Of being riddle, randomness, or code,
And all of Babel’s gibberish stream by.Behind the name is that which has no name;
Today I have felt its shadow gravitate
In this blue needle, in its trembling sweepCasting its influence toward the farthest strait,
With something of a clock glimpsed in a dream
And something of a bird that stirs in its sleep.
It is no discredit to Mezey to say I prefer Wilbur’s. Mezey’s is wonderful. I get the sense of someone old, or the keeper of a truth that is old, realizing a subtle portent in both versions. Mezey’s poetic persona is learned, someone who works diligently and who knows more than the reader. Wilbur’s understands much that is awesome exists beyond his knowing. His may be a soliloquy. “Hodgepodge” grounds in a way that the airy “dark scrawl” does not. “Kingly” vs. “royal” or “ghost” vs. “spirit” I might say if I were of a mind to presage the linked video clip two paragraphs down. I read a wonder in Wilbur’s that I don’t in Mezey’s.
Quick confession: I’m being petty because I’m a Wilbur fan and this wouldn’t bother me otherwise, but “name” to “dream” is a false rhyme that I inexplicably have to point out. Apologies to Mezey who, as a quick search will show, was a fine and respected poet/translator. Borges’s fiction has often been compared to Poe. Both write gothic tales with weight. That his is truer than Wilbur’s, if less enjoyable, deserves a shrug towards possibility.
Wilbur’s translations were originally published in 1969. Borges was alive at the time. In a 1977 episode of Firing Line, Borges told William F. Buckley, Jr. that most of his reading was done in English.* In fact, he said, he preferred English. He could have put out his own English version of the poems. To my knowledge he did not. Wilbur is among the greatest English language craftsmen to emerge in the wake of Eliot. He’s someone you’d entrust. I don’t know if Wilbur requested permission before or if he contacted Borges at all. I suspect so if not for whatever legal permissions are involved in printing a translation, then out of courtesy. I can’t imagine allowing him to translate only to stand over his shoulder. If things happened differently and Wilbur presented after having made the translations, was Borges impressed by fidelity or enrichment?
Back to the poems as Wilbur put them.
Everness
One thing does not exist: Oblivion.
God saves the metal and he saves the dross.
And his prophetic memory guards from loss
The moons to come, and those of evenings gone.
Everything is: the shadows in the glass
Which, in between the day’s two twilights, you
Have scattered by the thousands, or shall strew
Henceforward in the mirrors that you pass.
And everything is part of that diverse
Crystalline memory, the universe;
Whoever through its endless mazes wanders
Hears door on door click shut behind his stride,
And only from the sunset’s farther side
Shall view at last the Archetype and the Splendors.
Many a desecration has graced the pages of composition notebooks, committed by teenagers after reading a rare poem that manages to touch on mysticism without face planting. It’s not an easy thing to pull off without sounding like Christopher Lee. This poem, and the next as well, should come with a warning, “Don’t try this at home. Ever.” The word “Crystalline” is particularly dangerous and likely to lead to embarrassing pseudo-literariness as I, the former fifteen-year-old who coined, and then refused to renounce for far too long, the phrase “crystalline echo” can attest.
Borges is at home with such things.
Ewigkeit
Turn on my tongue, O Spanish verse; confirm
Once more what Spanish verse has always said
Since Seneca’s black Latin; speak your dread
Sentence that all is fodder for the worm.
Come, celebrate once more pale ash, pale dust,
The pomps of death and the triumphant crown
Of that bombastic queen who tramples down
The pretty banners of our pride and lust.
Enough of that. What things have blessed my clay
Let me not cravenly deny. The one
Word of no meaning is Oblivion,
And havened in eternity, I know,
My many precious losses burn and stay:
That forge, that night, that risen moon aglow.
I’ll look for more of Borges’s poetry. I don’t know if anything else he’s written will strike me quite as a strand of some gossamer attraction barely perceived by “Some bird, perhaps, who shifts a bit in sleep.” In the mean time, I’ll revisit Tlon, The Library of Babel, The Garden of the Forking Path, and other places in or not in Ficciones. This will take a few days.
*The full episode is here and it’s all the stuff we bemoan tv no longer is (even though it rarely was) but should be as Survivor LXXXXCXXXMII: Des Moines hauls in another ratings win.
“Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote” which is as funny a send up of Critical Theory as you’re likely to find and even funnier considering its inconvenient timing for the theorists.
Huh?Report
“Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote” (original Spanish title: “Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote”) is a short story by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges.Report
Huh. News to me.
I still have no idea what he’s talking about. How is it a send up of “Critical Theory,” or critical theory, or literary criticism? How is the timing inconvenient for the theorists?Report
Related, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the other Borges’ story mentioned in that Wikipedia article, and from Quine’s entry in Quiddities on the “Universal Library” in relation to LLMs, and maybe also that project to protect musicians from frivolous plagiarism lawsuits by copywriting every possible combination of notes and cords. I mention this because, I figure if it makes sense to you that this is connected to Menard, then you probably understand why I’m confused about the “Critical Theory” comment in the OP.Report
The timing was inconvenient because he made fun of them in the late 1930s, just when critical theory was establishing itself, finding homes in universities, etc. Critical theory looks for power structures in literature. In “Pierre Menard” he presents Quixote rewritten word for word by a modern author and then lauds it as enriched. “When Cervantes wrote X, it was simply as a sixteenth century… but when Menard writes X, note the rebellion against etc.” and so on. It’s a funny story.Report
What is it saying about critical theory?Report
I’ll be a bit more specific with my question. In thinking about the relationship between Borges and “Critical Theory,” the primary work of literary criticism from the Frankfurt School Borges that would have had available to him at the time of his writing of Menard would have been Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction“. Putting aside that his literary theory isn’t about power (you’ll find the word “power” in that essay a handful of times, particularly in the epigraph, but it is not used in the way that you believe “Critical Theory” thinks about literature.
Anyway, while I can’t say for sure that Borges had read Benjamin, that they had similar views of literature, as reflected in “Menard,” and more so in the “Library of Babel,” so strongly parallels Benjamin’s own view of literature (again, read the essay) that the connection has been noted in Borges’ scholarship for decades. Hell, there’s a reasonably well known (among scholars) book about it.
As many others have argued pointed out over the last several decades, both Benjamin and Borges (particularly in “Menard”) prefigured, and greatly influenced, later structuralist and post-structuralist literary theories, which is why they’re both oft discussed. Derrida was a big fan; Foucault, whom you probably mean when you talk about power , blames Borges for his structuralism(!) in the preface to his great structuralist essay The Origin of Things: “This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought”; Deleuze was a big fan of Borges, and in particular of Menard, writing in Difference and Repition:
Borges, we know, excelled in recounting imaginary books. But he goes further when he considers a real book, such as Don Quixote as though it were an imaginary book, itself reproduced by an imaginary author, Pierre Menard, who in turn he considers to be real. In this case, the most exact, the most strict repetition has as its corelate the maximum of difference…”
I could go on, but I think you get the point: if we’re thinking of “Critical Theory” as the Frankfurt School, then Borges and it’s primary literary theorist were so much in agreement that people often talk about their joint influence on future literature and literary theory, and if you mean the larger set of thinkers and movements that sometime get lumped under critical theory today (so in addition to the Frankfurt School, the structuralists, the post-structuralists, etc.), he is today, and has long been, one of the biggest literary influences of “critical theory.”
I realize of course that you probably haven’t read any “Critical Theory,” either in the narrow (Frankfurt School) or broader (all those other things) sense, so I’m genuinely wondering, what do you think it was that Borges was saying about them, and why do you think he was doing so?Report
Critical theory readings of Jane Austin attempt to examine racial oppression. That’s a pretty good example viewing older works through a modern lens, projecting our way of looking at the world on a work that was conceived without such a considerations, at least without such considerations seen as we see them. Cervantes wrote in the sixteenth century. Menard is written as having rewritten Don Quixote word for word. Now the exact same words, written four hundred years later bear “the influence of Nietzsche.” If it’s not apparent, he’s spoofing the idea that a writer’s words are so malleable as to reflect later trendiness.Report
I think (and I believe most readers think) you’re reading the story incorrectly, but regardless, can you point to some critical theory on Jane Austen and race that you find ahistorical or anachronistic?Report
If you don’t think the story is a spoof, that’s fine. You could Google Jane Austen and critical theory and see for yourself. I just did and found a collection of essays called Jane Austen and Critical Theory. Racial oppression is mentioned in the blurb, as it is in most reviews from her own time.Report
That collection does not have any essays doing what you describe. I would love to see an example, though, if you can find one. Since you’re the one who made the point, I thought you’d have at least a passing familiarity with that you thought he was spoofing.
You, on the other hand, have a manifestly anachronistic reading of the Borges story, which obviously couldn’t have been about critical theory or anachronistic readings in the way you describe, assuming that they have every existed (I’m sure they do on Twitter), didn’t exist then.
He’s not sending up anachronisms; he’s making a much more interesting point about translation, readers, and interpretation. You’d get more out of the story if you read it less anachronistically and less shallowly.Report
Thanks for the advice.Report
You’re welcome.
A sincere question: given that you quite clearly know nothing about critical theory, what is it you find funny about a spoof of it? Or, given your extremely, er, 21st century reading, do you just find the idea of spoofing anachronistic readings funny, and your reference to “critical theory” is just a sort of cultural signifier, less a reference to Borges’ actual target (under your reading) than a way of indicating that you, yourself, are firmly planted on a certain side of contemporary political and cultural discourse?Report
Eh, from here, it seems like he has a pretty decent handle on it.
I can see how “you don’t agree with me!” is a particularly vitriolic attack among a particular subset.
But for those not among it… well, it has a lot less bite.
(If anything, this reminds me of the “localization” debates about Japanese video games brought to America. Believe it or not, some local localizers believe that there’s only one way to tell the story over here! Yeah. It’s nuts. Kids. I shake my head trying to remember being 20 and not being able to.)Report
I’m not sure on what you’re agreeing with him on: his facile interpretation of the story, the story’s relationship to critical theory, the specific view he has of critical theory (he can’t offer any examples of his version, but perhaps you can)?
I’m saying a) Borges is saying something completely different about the author, texts, translation, the reader, interpretation, even history, and for evidence of my interpretation, you can read literally any critical writing on the text (hell, you could read the Wikipedia article to which you linked), b) it is not saying anything about then existing or currently existing “critical theory,” and in fact it has an affinity with then existing and subsequent critical theory, especially Benjamin.
I’d add that a facile, lazy interpretation of Borges is consistent with his interpretations of other authors. See, e.g., his post on Whitman.Report
I’m agreeing with him on his interpretation of the story which, in my opinion, is in the ballpark of “somewhere what the author playfully meant”.
So, like, I’m pretty sure that you would be able to corner Borges himself and yell “WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?” with a handful of bayonetted teenagers behind you and get him to agree that he was just playing around.
But if you avoided the threats, you could get a couple of glasses of wine in him and get him to say “I was being playful” or something like that.
Which, I understand, is offensive to true believers.Report
That he’s playing around is not in question. That he’s making fun of what the OP says is a silly incorporation.Report
I don’t think that he’s doing the “mocking it” or “holding it in contempt” thing but I do think that he’s teasing it.
Though I understand that the belief that he would be doing something like that is counter-revolutionary.Report
I’m trying to be nice here. If you don’t want it to be a spoof, I don’t care. Feel free to say it isn’t. I’ll go with Alexander Coleman who edited Borges collections and wrote numerous articles on the man when he wrote “Borges described to Bioy Casares the outline of one of his finest literary spoofs, ‘Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.'” Let me and the man who made a living writing about Borges alone in our ignorance. Your wisdom is wasted on us. It was so kind of you to provide the corrective though.Report
Oh man, you should have read the piece you got that quote from. it talks about what Borges was spoofing. It doesn’t say that you think it says.
To be clear, I’m not denying that he’s spoofing; I’m denying what you think he was spoofing, while also pointing it that you don’t actually know anything about what you think he was spoofing).Report
The two translation styles succeed in capturing different aspects of the poems.
Wibur is better at capturing the rhythm of the poem, while Mezey is more faithful and the meanings are more precise. Mezey gives you the words of Borges, Wilbur gives you better poetry.
If it was a matter of accuracy, Mezey is a better translator, but traduttore, traditori, as the Italians say. If you want to read poetry, you are likely better off with Wilbur.
Now, if I wanted to translate the short stories, the answer might be different. Borges is a master of choosing the exact word to convey his very precise idea. I would be scared translating the exquisite nuance of his apparently very simple and colloquial sentences.
Fortunately, I don’t have toReport