Translation as Metaphor: Three Versions of Borges

Author(s): Alfred J. Macadam

Source: MLN, Vol. 90, No. 6, Comparative Literature: Translation: Theory and Practice (Dec.,
1975), pp. 747-754
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2907017
Accessed: 30/07/2010 09:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
MLN.

http://www.jstor.org
M L N 747

l7RANSLATION AS METAPHOR: THREE

VERSIONS OF BORGES 4i BY ALFRED J.
MACADAM. M The three translationsinto English of
Borges' "La muertey la br jula" ("Death and the Compass')1provide
a unique opportunityto examine the morphologyof translation.Of
course, dealing withas proteana figureas Borges is a riskybusiness
since as artist,essayist,translator,and critiche combines roles he
often depicts as antagonisticand contradictory.By dealing with
three versions of one tale it is hoped the punishmentwill fitthe
crime,but in order to accomplishthisitwillbe necessaryto discover
what lies at the root of translationitselfand to examine how this
peculiar art has flourished.
In the De RationeDicendi,or Rhetoricaad Herennium,once attri-
buted to Cicero, metaphor is defined in this way:
Translatio est cum verbumin quandam re transferetur ex alia re,
quod propter similitudinem recte videbitur transferri. Ea
sumitur rei ante oculos ponendae causa ... Translationem
pudentem dicunt esse oportere, ut cum ratione in consimilem
rem transeat,ne sine dilectu temere et cupide videatur in dis-
similemtranscurrisse.
Metaphor (translatio)occurs when a word applyingto one thingis
transferredto another,because the similarityseems tojustifythis
transference.Metaphor is used for the sake of creatinga vivid
mental picture .. . They say that a metaphor ought to be re-
strained,so as to be a transitionwith good reason to a kindred
thing,and not seem an an indiscriminate,reckless,and precipi-
tate leap to an unlike thing.2
Metaphor (translatio),according to the author of Ad Herennium,is a
kind of transfer,and it is a happy coincidence thatthe word he uses
for metaphorand the word translationshould have the same root,
the past participleof the verb transfero, translatum(to bear across,
1 JorgeLuis Borges, "La muerteyla br jula," Sur, No. 92 (May,
1942). Reprintedin
Ficciones(1935-1944) (Buenos Aires: Sur, 1944), pp. 161-179. All Spanish quotations
taken from thisedition.
2De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetoricaad Herennium),ed. and tr. Harry Caplan, Loeb
Classical Library(Great Britain: William Heinemann, 1968), pp. 342-344.

MLN 90 747-754 (1975)

Copyright? 1975 by The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress
All rightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
 748 M L N

carry,bringover, transfer),because both metaphorand translation

have theirsource in the same ideas, carryingover fromone place,
condition,or language to another,or transformingone thinginto
another.
The mysteryshrouding both ideas arises from the absence of a
middle term,the bridge that simultaneouslyconceals and-reveals
itself. The author of Ad Herenniumcan justify the creation of
metaphorsonlywithsome uneasiness. He saysthat"a word applying
to one thingis transferredto another,because thesimilarity seems to
justify this transference"(p. 343). But this kind of argument is
specious: he may postulate that the similaritybetween the objects
facilitatesthe shiftof terms,but he cannot use this to explain why
such transfersare made. He seems to realize thatmetaphormaking
depends on the whim of the individual when, at the end of his
statementon translatio, he mentionsrestraint:"a metaphorought to
be restrained,so as to be a transitionwithgood reason to a kindred
thing,and not seem an indiscriminate,reckless,and precipitateleap
to an unlike thing."
Too subjective a connection between terms, too far-fetcheda
bridgingwould engender obscurityor hermeticism.Of course, this
is preciselywhat the purpose of metaphor has been in Western
culture,at least since the Baroque. The creation of a 'vivid mental
picture,"in the words of the author of Ad Herennium,is an end in
itself.Metaphors,as the author of a seventeenth-century treatiseon
metaphornotes,are "like the apples whichgrowbythe Dead Sea; in
appearance theyare beautifuland bright,but ifyou bite them,they
leave your mouth fullof ashes and smoke."3In reality,all literature
is metaphoric.First,it is a translatio(transfer,translation)between
traditions,individuals,and languages, and second, it is always an
utterancewhichis simultaneouslya camouflage, a sayingof some-
thingin termsof somethingelse. Literatureis metaphorsetin a void,
a one sided bridge curlingback into itselflike a Moebius strip.The
critic'staskis to examine the propertiesof whathe has and perhaps
(but we knowthistobe an unattainableideal) to recrossthebridgeof
metaphor into the ground fromwhich it springs.
Granted,the re-translatio can onlybe another constructionrather
than a true work of analysis, and the result is a new structure
composed of the text,the critic-reader,and the literarytradition.

3 Emanuele Tesauro, II cannochialearistotelico

(Bologna: GioseffoLonghi, 1675), p.
325.
M L N 749

Other criticalbridgesare possible,ones builton the lifeand person-

alityof the author,but these too are subjectto manypitfalls.In fact,
there is no possibilityof wholeness, totality,or perfectionin any
(metaphor/translation)
phase of the text'slife:itis born as a translatio
and it existsas just that. It existswhen it is perceived; it is only and
always the version created by the reader's act of translation.
We may wonder whethertranslation,taken simplyas the putting
intootherlanguages of wordsthatoccur in a firstlanguage, is simply
another step in this endless coupling of metaphor to metaphor.
Borges would seem to thinkso, especially if we consider his 1932
essay, "Las versiones homericas" ("The Homeric Versions"). This
essaydeals withtranslationsof Homer, primarilyinto English-and
Borges preverselytranslatesthose translationsinto Spanish -and
states:
Bertrand Russell defines an object in the world as a circular
systemshiningforthmyriadimpressions;the same can be said of
a text,given the incalculable repercussionsof anythingverbal.
A partial and precious document of a text'svicissitudesmay be
seen in its translations.What are the many translationsof the
Iliad, fromChapman to Magnien but differentperspectiveson an
object in motion, a long, experimental game of omissions and
emphases? (There is not even any need to compare French and
English translations;the same contradictionsappear withinthe
same language.) To presuppose that any recombinationof ele-
mentsis necessarilyinferiorto its original is to presuppose that
rough draft9 is necessarilyinferiorto rough draftH. Of course
therecan be nothingbut rough drafts.The conceptof the"defini-
tive text"belongs only to religion or fatigue.
This passage, not rendered less paradoxical by translation,may tell
more than we care to know about such mattersas originality,the
artistas unique personality,and Borges himself.Borges ridiculesthe
idea of originality:what makes a translationseem less originalthan
what it stands for (or than other works of art) is the palpable pre-
sence of that model. The model however is itselfa copy, since it
inevitablyexistedin stages,the "rough drafts."Where the firstdraft
came fromis indeed mysterious,although Borges, in the sentences
precedingthe quotation above, suggeststhatthe act of composition

4Jorge Luis Borges, "Las versiones homericas,"Discusidn(Buenos Aires: Emec6,

1966).
 750 M L N

is anotheract of translationor metaphor-making,thatis,an assembl-

ing of a differentwhole out of extant pieces. When Levi-Strauss
describes the mythmaker as a bricoleur,5 he might be describing
Borges' writer,who composes his textsout of the body of literature
itself.The Renaissance shared Borges' opinion, which would seem
to be a source of esthetichorrorforthe Romantics,ifwe take Mary
Shelley'sFrankenstein as a depiction of the Romantic artist.
The artist,then,despite his personal hopes, is in the last analysis
strivingtowardanonymity.All he can ever achieve is a recombina-
tionof materialswhichtakeson a lifeof itsown,one which,as Borges
saysin "Borges y yo" ("Borges and I"),6 becomes a part of language
itself.The artistis mortal; the textcannot die. It sprang fromthe
corpus of literatureand to it it returns,eternallydivorced fromits
creator,labeled or not withhis name. There is a despair here which
appears in mostof Borges' texts,thedespair of the artistwho creates
knowinghis workwillbe turnedagainsthim,interpretedin wayshe
cannot imagine. What he has done in creating will be done by
readers. A careful examination of much of Borges' early poetry
reveals a curious deformationof the elegiac tradition,one in which
the poet sings of his own death, immortalizinghimselfat the same
time.The workof artis a self-portrait, deformedlikeParmigianino's
"Self-portraitin a Convex Mirror,"recognizable,ifonlyto the artist
himself.
Inferiority,superiority,originality,copying,the "definitivetext":
these are all concepts invented by readers or critics,but theyhave
littleto do either with the creation or the interpretationof a text.
Borges pulls the rug out fromunder any estheticevaluation which
does not deal with the text itself.The word evaluation itselfhe
devalues. This is perhaps whyhe seems at his mostbizarre when he
talksabout his favoriteauthors-Kipling, Stevenson,Chesterton,de
Quincey -he is showingus thatour notionsof hierarchiesin litera-
ture are social and not literary,questions of tasteimposed on litera-
ture, a field,it would seem, unrelated to the idea of taste.
To exemplifythe infinitepossibilitiesof any text,it seems appro-
priateto compare the resultsof threecontemporaryversionsof "La
muerte y la bruljula,"the translationsby Donald Yates, Anthony

5 Claude Lvi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,

1970), p. 35.
6Jorge Luis Borges, "Borges y yo,"El hacedor(Buenos Aires: Emec6, 1960), pp.
50-5 1.
M L N 751

Kerrigan,and thecombined effortsof Norman Thomas di Giovanni

and Borges himself.7Of the many problems which plague Borges'
translators(criticismand reading being understood to be acts of
translation),none is as perplexingas thefirstsentenceof "Death and
the Compass." It combines parody and clue-dropping (in many
senses), a stylethat seeks to exhaust its own possibilities,8and hints
about the significanceof the tale:
De los muchos problemasque ejercitaronla temerariaperspicacia
de Lonnrot, ninguno tan extrafio-tan rigurosamenteextrafio,
diremos-como la periodica serie de hechos de sangre que cul-
minaronen la quinta de Triste-le-Roy,entreel interminableolor
de los eucaliptos.
(p. 161)
How are we to understandthegrandiloquence and banalityof such a
sentence? It seems to be a parody of everyopening sentence from
everydetectivestory,althoughitsmacksheavilyof Edgar Allan Poe's
Auguste Dupin stories. Borges' narrator adopts the pose of the
familiarstoryteller: he assumes we know who Lonnrot is, either
because we have already heard of him or because his "temeraria
perspicacia"constitutesan epithetwhichmarkshim as the detective
in thistale. Of course, thereis nothingin the titlethatwould denote
its being a detectivestory;the titleis in fact meaninglessuntil the
storyis read.
All of the translatorsagree that "Death and the Compass" accu-
ratelyrenders"La muerteyla brujula." And on one levelof meaning
theyare certainlyright: how else could one translatethe Spanish
words? But there may be more to the titlethan meets the eye. A
readingof thestorydemonstratestheimportanceof therelationship
between the numbers three and four: three pointson a map which
forman equilateral triangle,whichbecomes a rhombus or equilat-

'Jorge Luis Borges, Ficciones,edited by Anthony Kerrigan (New York: Grove

Press, 1962).
Labyrinths, edited by Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby (New York, New
Directions: 1962).
The Alephand OtherStories,1933-1969, edited by Norman Thomas di Giovanni
(New York, E. P. Dutton: 1970).
8See "Pr6logo a la edici6n de 1954," Historiauniversalde la infania(Buenos Aires,
Emece: 1967), p. 7. "Yo diria que barroco es aquel estiloque deliberadamenteagota (o
quiere agotar) sus possibilidades y que linda con su propia caricatura."I would call
baroque thatstylewhichdeliberatelyexhausts(or seeks to exhaust) itspossiblitiesand
that borders on its own caricature." (my translation)
 752 M L N

eral parallelogramby the simple addition of a fourthpoint. Is this

suggested in the titleby the trisyllabic"la muerte"juxtaposed with
the quadrisyllabic"la brijula," both connected by an inertconjunc-
tion"y"?It maywellbe, but thecombinationof threeand fourcould
onlyhave been retainedin Englishbyabandoning the translationof
the meaningof the Spanish words. None of the translatorsbothered
withthis matter,and we may all agree thatit is insignificant,but a
possibilityis presentin the originalwhichis absentin the translations.
The mostobvious problem in the translationor interpretationof
the story'sfirstsentence is its modifiers: "temeraria perspicacia,"
"rigurosamente extrafio," "periodica serie," and "interminable
olor." Kerriganrendersthefirst"daringperspicacity,"Donald Yates
has it as "recklessdiscernment,"and Borges-di Giovanni read it as
"rash mind." No one used the cognate "temerarious,"perhaps be-
cause it is a clumsy word, although the expression "temeraria
perspicacia" is not any less tongue twistingthan "temerarious
perspicacity."While all the translationsare equally accurate,each in
itswayraises some questions: "daring" seems too weak fortemerity;
"discernment"maybe as good as "perspicacity,"but the latterseems
better;and "rash mind" makes Lonnrot sound more like an impul-
sive adolescent thana man guiltyof pride. None, again, is incorrect,
and the examples simply point out the utter hopelessness of the
situation.
This fear is confirmedby the translationsof the other modifiers.
"Rigurosamente extrano" becomes in Yates "rigorouslystrange,"
in Kerrigan "harshly strange," and in "Borges-di Giovanni,
"methodicallystrange."The adjectiveis impossibleto render in one
word, but the modified adjective is even more difficult.All of the
translatorsuse the word "strange,"but "extrafio"may mean other
things,such as "foreign,"or "alien," or "bizarre." The combination
of rigor and bizarrenessyieldsan oxymoronwhich is ratherpleas-
ing, but thisis simplyanother translation,and it saysnothingabout
those already extant.
"Periodica serie" presentseven greaterproblems.It was rendered
variouslyas "periodic series,""staggered series,"and "intermittent
series." Something importantmay be at stake here if we read the
sentence in the contextof the entire tale. The specificincidentof
LonnrotversusScharlackdissolvesat theend of thestoryas bothmen
acquire great archetypal significance.They become incarnations,
metaphors indeed, of the hunter and the hunted, two sides of the
M L N 753

same coin, identitieswhich are interchangeable. Does "peri'dica

serie"referto the recurrentcycleof huntswhichoccurs throughout
timeas well as the particularcase recounted in the story?"Periodic"
and "intermittent" certainlydo carrythe connotationof recurrence,
but "staggered" does not sound right.
An interpolation might be made here about what follows
"periodica serie." it is a "periodica serie de hechos de sangre que
culminaron en la quinta de Trise-le-Roy."It is not the "periodica
serie" thatreaches itsculminationbut the "hechos de sangre" which
reach their culmination. In English it is all too easy to create a
sentence in which it is not clear whether the series or the events
culminate,and this is what all of the translatorshave done: "the
periodic series of bloody eventswhich culminated,""the staggered
series of bloody acts which culminated,""the intermittent series of
murders which came to a culmination."The only way out of this
ambiguityis the use of possessives,but thisrequires some syntactical
alterations.It is curious that"hechos de sangre" should be rendered
as "bloodyevents"or "bloodyacts"insteadof "murders"as itis in the
third case. The literal versions make the sentence sound archaic,
almost Elizabethan, although,again, no versionis absolutelyincor-
rect.
The finalcombinationof adjectiveand noun in the firstsentence,
"interminableolor," is the most perplexing. The three translations
are these: 'ceaseless aroma," "boundless odor," and "incessant
odor." The problemof meaninghere is acute. Emphasis is placed on
theadjective"interminable":itmightsuggest(doubtful)tedium,but
it would seem to be expressing the unending or timelessqualityof
the smell. It is an aroma which abides in the eucalyptus grove, an
aroma whichexistswithoutthepresence of the perceiver,something
which escapes the existence-through-perception realityof the text
itself.It is another hint about the archetypeswhich existed before
the tale was writtenand will continue to live afterit: the perceiver
may perish, this perception will never die. This clue about the
metaphoricsignificanceof the entirestoryis broughtto fulfillment
towardthe end of the narrative,when Lonnrotis describedadvanc-
ing "among the eucalyptustrees,treadingon confused generations
of broken,rigidleaves" (pp. 172-173, mytranslation)as he comes to
his doom.
These examples demonstrateboth theimpossiblityand theinevit-
ablityof translation.In the same waythatany workof art existsas a
 754 M L N

metaphor,the hintof somethingabsent,the translationstands as a

reflectionof a verydim shadow. How else can we explain whythere
suddenlyappear in the translationsbizarre twistshaving nothingto
do withwhateveritwas theoriginalseemed tobe saying:how can the
Spanish word "cosmorama" be a "peepshow," a "wax museum,"and
somethingcalled a "cosmorama" in English? How can the "Yidische
Zaitung" in Borges' textbe the "JtidischeZaitung" in the Borges-di
Giovanni text? How can the absurd "Congreso Eremitico" ("Con-
gress of Hermits")of the originalbe the esoteric"Hermetical Con-
gress"of one translation?Whyshould the "vendedores de biblias"in
the Spanish textundergo a sexual transformationin another trans-
lation to become the "women selling Bibles"?
Everythingin literatureis transformation,and no sea-change is
impossible,even when the man who brought the so-called original
intotheworldassistsat therebirthof histextin a differentlanguage.
We do not read the same text twice: why should we be allowed to
create ittwice?Translation,translatio,metaphor,transformation, all
wordsused as images of theact of reading,whichis itselfan image of
the act of writing,whichis itselfan image of the act of translating.

Yale University