Rodrigo Paramo
Prof. Prieto
HUSL 6370
3 May 2017
Ana Mara Barrenecheas Borges the Labyrinth Maker was hailed by Borges as a text that
all students of the literary craft should read.1 Labyrinth Maker is the result of Barrenecheas
attempt to identify and catalog a distinctly Borgesian aesthetic. The monograph focuses on five
thematic areas that appear throughout Borges fictions, nonfictions, and poetry, with a focus on
the way that Borges vocabulary his system (or jumble) of fads, oddities, and subjects of pet
words and effective or ineffective tricks and turns of speech2 melds his writings content with
its form. Labyrinth Maker is thus a crucial tool for the critic hoping to unpack the many secret
links and affinities in Borges oeuvre, especially given Borges repeated admission that as a
storyteller he has but few stories to tell; he needs to tell them anew, over and over again, in all
their possible variations.3 The loftiness of Labyrinth Makers goals, and the degree to which it
succeeds in accomplishing them, should not, however, occlude the potential pitfalls that await the
critic who attempts to wield it as an interpretive tool. Namely, Borges the Labyrinth Maker is the
expanded, edited, and translated edition of a previous work by Barrenechea her doctoral thesis,
La expression de la irrealidad en la obra de Jorge Luis Borges. While the texts expansions are
generally limited to biographical notes in a new chapter entitled Borges: Life and Works, the
Paramo 2
monographs status as a translation means it attempts to cull the authors style across works for
circumstances surrounding Borges relationships with his translators. At the time of Labyrinth
Makers first publication in 1957, none of Borges four story collections had been translated into
English. His first English publications came in 1962, with Anthony Kerrigans translation of
Ficciones and Donald A. Yates and James E. Irbys assorted translations of his stories and essays,
published as Labyrinths.4 In 1967, Borges met Norman Thomas di Giovanni at Harvard, a meeting
that launched the mens relationship and saw di Giovanni travel to Buenos Aires, where he and
Borges would collaborate on English translations of the latters work for five years.5 Although
these collaborations were at first envisioned as the definitive English versions of Borges output,
the two men unexpectedly fell out and their work was never completed.6 The falling out, nominally
over Borges first marriage, was ultimately resolved and saw their relationship healed, but any
hope for a definitive English text was put to rest with Borges death.7 Less than two months before
his death on June 14, 1986, Borges married Marie Kodama, his second wife. With his death,
Kodama became the executor of his estate, and proceeded to use this authority to re-negotiate the
English translations of Borges works. This decision was only possible after Borges death, as he
had felt strongly that his work with di Giovanni was of such high quality that his translator
deserved fifty percent of any royalties earned.8 As Borges executor, Kodama sold the rights to the
Argentines English translations and rescinded all existing agreements between Borges and di
Giovanni.9 As a result of these negotiations, the estate commissioned Andrew Hurleys translations
of Borges fictions, published as Collected Fictions, the first of three volumes envisioned as the
Paramo 3
collaborations with Borges would never be published again when di Giovanni attempted to
publish some of their work together online in 2009, the Borges estate took swift legal action forcing
him to remove them from his website.11 Hurleys Collected Fictions has thus become the de facto
English edition of Borges oeuvre. Recognition of this fact should not be read as a claim to the
quality of Hurleys translations.12 In part, such a disclaimer is necessary because of the mixed
reception Hurleys Fictions received. Reviews of Collected Fictions ranged from praise for Hurley
having no ear for the rhythms of Borgess language.13 The latter of these comments is
particularly noteworthy, as it comes from Alberto Manguel, who as a teenager in the 1960s read
to Borges several times a week.14 Manguels comments with regards to Hurley are consistent with
the negative opinion Manguel holds of almost all existing English translations of Borges work:
Since the first American translations of Borges, attempted in the Fifties by well-intentioned admirers
such as Donald Yates and James Irby, English-speaking readers have been very poorly served. From
the uneven versions collected in Labyrinths to the more meticulous, but ultimately unsuccessful,
editions published by Norman Thomas di Giovanni, from Ruth Simms abominable apery of Other
Inquisitions to Paul Bowless illiterate rendition of The Circular Ruins, Borges in English must
be read in spite of the translations. That one of the key writers of the century should lack an
outstanding translator is indicative of how low foreign literature lies in the estimation of English-
language publishers. English-language readers have either to resign themselves to the old, barely
serviceable translations, or submit to the new, barely serviceable translations by Andrew Hurley,
Professor of English at the University of Puerto Rico.15
Manguels criticisms notwithstanding, Hurleys translation has become the most widely-accessible
English collection of Borges fictions and is in fact the only series still in print. It must thus
function as the starting-point for any work on Borges English catalog, irrespective of the quality
of the translation.16
The tie between Hurleys Collected Fictions and Barrenecheas Labyrinth Maker may at
first be difficult to ascertain. In part, this is because no obvious connection exists. Labyrinth Maker
was published more than twenty years before Collected Fictions, which necessarily means it
Paramo 4
cannot have taken Hurleys translations into account. Nonetheless, Barrenecheas project grapples
with questions at the heart of Borges studies, perhaps none more important than what is a
translation?17 Although translation, broadly speaking, forms the playing field for my endeavor
here, it is perhaps more accurate to refine the question further: what is a translation for Borges?
What is a translation of Borges? Are translations the aesthetic equal of their originals? While
these questions inevitably crop up in the margins of all work on Borges, my focus here will be on
whether a distinctly Borgesian style can exist outside of the authors original productions. This
question is of unique interest due to both how highly Borges praised Barranecheas project, and
Borges believed that there was no compelling reason to presume the original text was in
any way superior to a translation (at least, no universally applicable one). Borges at times favored
a translation over its original, other times an original over its translation, and he was often
interested in weighing their relative merits, aesthetic and otherwise.18 Of course, this does not
come close to capturing the complexities inherent to Borges theories of translation, as revealed
by Borges suggestion, for instance, that so-called originals are as much drafts as translations
are.19 It must thus be concluded that for Borges, translation and writing are near-indistinguishable
acts. Both practices involve the re-creation of a pre-existing text while casting writing as re-
creation at first sounds strange, Borges first collection of stories proves his point.20 1935s A
Universal History of Infamy found Borges fictionalizing accounts of real criminals these stories,
recreations of true events which he at times took significant liberties with, are theoretically
indiscernible from a generic translation, invested in the re-creation of a text that necessitates
Paramo 5
that are simultaneously Hurleys own original texts.21 Such a reading further necessitates an
explicit reckoning with Barrenecheas project, one that can, in English at least, not be limited to
the Argentines own words. Attempts to identify a Borgesian style must contend with the texts that
translators have produced and published under Borges name. A Borgesian style must always
include Kerrigans, Yates, Irbys, di Giovannis, and Hurleys styles. Similarly, each of these
translators stories is likely to frequently lack some or all of the elements that Barrenechea
I will focus my attention on Tln, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, one of Borges most acclaimed
stories. Tln has a unique relationship to the problem of Borgesian translation: while di Giovanni
& Borges did publish several collaborations in their The Aleph, Tln was excluded, much to the
authors dismay. They note in their foreword that we would have preferred a broader selection
that might have included such stories as Tln, Uqbar, ORbis Tertius [] However, rights to
make our own translations of these stories were denied us, despite the unselfish and unswerving
efforts of Dr. Donald Yates on our behalf.22 Not one to be easily deterred, di Giovanni nonetheless
published his version of the story online, where it remains to this day despite Viking Penguins
efforts to have it taken down in hope of stunting di Giovannis Borges-related output.23 The
Tln provides valuable insight into the ways that a distinctly Borgesian style manifests itself
across texts and languages. Perhaps most importantly, such an examination further reveals the
ways that this same style evolved over Borges career from the 1941 original Tln to his
collaboration with di Giovanni, written more than two decades into his career. Further, Tlns
Paramo 6
expansive scope ensures that the story represents each of the five thematic areas that Barrenechea
Widely regarded as one of Borges finest stories, Tln, qbar, Orbis, Tertius is in many ways
the lynchpin of Borges philosophical project.24 While Borges was certainly not invested in the
development of a fixed doctrine behind all the theories that abound in his books, Tln is deeply
invested in the performance of many of the principles that informed his aesthetic theories.25 In the
foreword to The Garden of Forking Paths, Borges wrote that It is a laborious madness and an
impoverishing one, the madness of composing vast books - setting out in five hundred pages an
idea that can be perfectly related orally in five minutes. The better way to go about it is to pretend
that those books already exist, and offer a summary, a commentary on them.26 This gesture of
pretending vast and complicated systems of thought already exist and merely referencing their
existence is emblematic of the representation of Tln throughout the story, invoking unreal
systems of language, philosophy, and metaphysics in passing, populating a vast intellectual library
that now exists in our own reality through Borges story.27 Further, Tlns content (in particular
the hrnir) embodies the infinitely repetitive and duplicative (as generic attributes) that so
fascinated Borges. It is thus no surprise that the words Barrenechea identified as typical of Borges
style (see Appendix 1) make 61 appearances in the original Spanish text.28 44 of these 61
appearances are unaltered in Hurleys version of the tale.29 However, Hurley has altered the
remaining 17 terms, at times so drastically that they lose any affinity with the rhetoric of their
original author. A few merit particular attention. The first occurs in the storys second paragraph;
Paramo 7
In the Spanish, remoto is highlighted by Barrenechea as an epithet that Borges regularly employs
to blur his beings as they withdraw and his objects as they become distant, even highlighting
other instances of remotos juxtaposition with espejo [mirror].31 Hurley translates el fondo
remoto as that far end, while Barrenecheas Labyrinth Maker translates remoto as remote.
Remote certainly makes more sense when attempting to identify a Borgesian vocabulary. The
similarities between the English and Spanish words allows for readers to identify affinities across
the languages, and it comes considerably closer to preserving Borges original text than Hurleys.
It is especially surprising that Hurley would choose not to use remote when one considers his
connections he believed Borges hoped the reader would make.32 Thus, Hurleys translation here
severs a crucial term from Borges vocabulary. While an emphasis on a singular excision of the
word remote perhaps risks falling into the hyper-classificatory mode of thought that Borges
regularly criticized, it is important to note that Hurleys change is not made in a way that could
easily be appended to Barrenecheas list of words. That far end is such a singular translation that
it occludes the development of the consistent patterns necessary to identify an authors style. This
becomes particularly clear with the way that Hurley translates Tlns second appearance of
remoto:
decision to translate the only two appearances of remoto as not only something different from
remote, but in two different ways throughout Tln robs the storys readers of a connection that
Borges has left for them to unpack. Hurley is not alone here di Giovannis translation similarly
eliminates remote from the story, translating it as From along and, like Hurley, distant.34
Paramo 8
are not present in the Spanish text. For instance, in his translation of Down at that far end of the
hallway, the mirror hovered, shadowing us, the decision to translate acechaba as shadowing
serves to conjure an image of shadows that is not present in the original Spanish but that
Barrenechea does highlight as consistent with the Borgesian style. Similarly, Hurleys translation
of an extended passage from the story mysteriously adds a word that Borges did not include in his
version of the tale, in the process allowing the story to perform the very self-replication it is
describing:
Another school posits that all time has already passed, so that our life is but the crepuscular memory,
or crepuscular reflection, doubtlessly distorted and mutilated, of an irrecoverable process. Yet
another claims that the history of the universeand in it, our lives and every faintest detail of our
livesis the handwriting of a subordinate god trying to communicate with a demon. Another, that
the universe might be compared to those cryptograms in which not all the symbols count, and only
what happens every three hundred nights is actually real. Another, that while we sleep here, we are
awake somewhere else, so that every man is in fact two men.35
Every sentence in this passage begins with the word another. This is consistent with the
translation (in the Spanish, otra), and serves to underscore a strategy Borges deployed in this
passage meant to underscore the storys pre-occupation with repetition and doubling. The
repetition of another serves to tie the sentences together while the periods at the end of each
sentence segment this passage into separate pieces, the consistent use of another serves to cast
doubt on that separation; or, at the very least, to cast the separation as paradoxical the sentences
are both distinct and united, syntactical elements that mirror those pieces on either side of
themselves.
While one could argue that the second of these sentences beginning with yet another
threatens the coherence of my reading, I believe that would miss the point Hurley is making. While
the yet is not present in Borges version of the story, its inclusion here allows the story to mirror
the world of Tln: the hrnir that appear on Tln include slight variations from the original - in
Paramo 9
length, luster, or some other aberration - this is the function that the yet another serves: in the
command his readers attention and further the texts performative value. This makes perhaps the
most compelling case for Hurleys translation as adding something to Borges text although
Hurleys Tln excludes key strategies utilized by Borges, it also establishes Hurleys willingness
to toy with the original and take it to new places the inclusion of the yet is a minor choice on
his part, but it serves to elevate the text considerably. Once more, the astute reader finds an affinity
between Hurley and di Giovannis translation: di Giovannis Tln similarly inserts a yet into
the chain of otras. However, his comes at the end of the paragraph: Yet another, that while we
are asleep here we are awake somewhere else and that consequently each man is two men.36 While
it may seem presumptuous to read too much into a seemingly innocuous similarity, the mirrored
yets reflect that Hurleys translation was onto something with his yet another. Given that
Hurleys translations were not commissioned until after Borges death, di Giovanni & Borges re-
creation likely predates Hurleys sanctioned translations. Further, given that di Giovanni &
Borges Tln was never officially published, it is difficult to envision that Hurley had ever read
their version. The fact that the translators thus likely made this change independent of one another,
and that Borges was involved in one of the efforts, bolsters the need to read such changes by the
Hurleys Tln further deviates from the original (and his fellow translators) in his
invocation of Greek myth in the story. While it occurs only once, the allusion positions the world
of Tln in a new system of thought, one that Borges himself has at other times incorporated into
his bibliography (namely, in 1947s La casa de Asterin). Here I include Borges original,
Paramo 10
interpolation is notable because, while theoretically consistent with Borges proclivity to establish
affinities between his fictions and other literary traditions, the text of the original story provides
no guidance to the translator that sueo should be read as a reference to anything other than
sleep. Rather, the decision to include Morpheus is indicative of Hurleys own awareness of a
Borgesian style a hyper-referential library that thrives on its consumption and re-incorporation
of other texts (for examples of this near-cannibalistic tendency, one need only look to Borges
treatment of Don Quixote in Pierre Menard, or to his re-telling of Poes The Purloined Letter
in Death and the Compass, to say nothing of his Universal History of Iniquity & The Book of
Imaginary Beings). In part, the realization that Hurley inserted his own allusions into Tln is
revelatory for the ways it demonstrates the translators as active participants in the furthering of a
style whose originator no longer graces this world. Yet, this alone is an insufficient takeaway.
Hurleys contributions reveal the ways that Tln has taken on a life of its own or perhaps more
accurately, embraced the life Borges foresaw for it: each of the translations I am dealing with
function as testaments to the auto-generative nature of the story. In this reading, the translators
divergences must be viewed simultaneously aberrations that challenge the notion of any original
text and as additions that add new meaning to each of Borges drafts.
Perhaps the most notable alteration of Borges language comes in the way Hurley treats a
series of adjectives that Borges deployed to convey the sense of the infinite that permeates through
much of Tln. While these discrepancies in the translation are reminiscent of Hurleys handling of
remoto, I believe that they portend a more significant alteration to the original text. The original
Paramo 11
Spanish words I reference here are innumerable, interminable, and inagotable, all of which
appear on the same page. The three words, united by the prefix in-, serve to establish a sense of
negation that permeates through the story, as each of the words is defined in relation to a lack. By
this I mean that these three words should be read as meaning not-numerable, not-terminable,
and not-exhaustible. While each of these terms locates Tln as an iteration of the infinite
that Barrenechea believes Borges to be so pre-occupied with, this resonance is largely lost in
Hurleys English rendering of the text. He translates each of the above terms as there is no limit
one of the central dissonances to be found in Hurleys handling of Borges: he regularly occludes
verbal structures and repetitions that function as through lines for the Argentines stories. While a
savvy reader may, upon reading Hurleys translation, identify a thematic connection between terms
preoccupied with the nature of infinity, it would be difficult for them to identify any structural or
systematic representation of that theme. This makes it difficult to consider Hurleys project a
success. In his attempt to transport Borges into the English-speaking world, he removed the ways
that Borges grammatical structures performed the very acts of negation, duplication, and
repetition that so thoroughly populated the fictional civilization of Tln. This becomes clearest
when one inspects di Giovannis text for these same adjectives. In the di Giovanni Tln, Borges
Spanish becomes the English countless, inexhaustible, numberless.39 While the connections
here are still not perfect, di Giovannis story preserves some portion of the originals undercurrent
of infinity. The connection between the terms is further buoyed by di Giovannis insertion of
endless immediately before the relevant section begins. Di Giovannis endless is Hurleys
infinite and Borges infinito, and while the latter two may seem preferable given their explicit
naming of the infinite, I believe that it is di Giovannis (and Borges) endless that deserves the
Paramo 12
credit here, as it serves to extend the chain of words ending in the suffix -less, a substitute for
the Spanish -in. di Govannis translation serves to salvage at least part of the originals
interconnected quality, and while it sacrifices the emphasis on negation, it introduces a sense that
something is missing or insufficient in this way, Tln once more is replicated as a necessarily
Barrenechea closes the final chapter of Labyrinth Maker with an extensive discussion of
Borges use of the parenthetical, a gesture which she sees as Borges attempt to demonstrate a
thought process within a syntactical framework the first idea enters the authors mind and is
presented in the main clause; this is followed by realization that reality is more complex, and
therefore Man can be both timid and valiant within the parenthetical manifestation.40 While this
particular strategy does not account for every appearance of parentheses in Borges stories, it
speaks to the authors insistent return to them. This is particularly true of the parentheticals
deployed in Tln. Given the texts purported engagement with an exhaustive list of scholarly
works, parentheses are often used as mere citations, representing not a thought experiment but
Borges attempt to shore up Tlns credibility as a scholarly work. Further, a few times the
insertions serve to propose two [other explanations] so that the reader may choose; when this
occurs, the one within parenthesis is always the more profound.41 Even when the text seemingly
corrects itself (era una ilusin o (ms precisamente) un sofisma),42 it serves to draw attention to
the storys tenuous status as a work in a near-constant state of revision, a fact belied by the sheer
In the original Tln, asides are included in parentheses on forty-two distinct occasions,
each of which Hurleys re-creation faithfully replicates. This replication serves two functions: first,
Paramo 13
it underscores the importance of asides to Borges fictions, opportunities for the author to
alternately complicate and clarify reality; second, it raises the question of whether di Giovannis
translations should in fact be read as definitive versions. In di Giovanni & Borges Tln, the
parentheticals are noticeably absent. Only fourteen of the originals forty-two make an appearance.
While the di Giovanni edition largely preserve the asides by replacing the parentheses with either
commas or em dashes, such a gesture fails to preserve both the visual interpolation that the
parenthetical allows and the affinity across asides. While evening the distribution of asides across
commas, parentheses, and em dashes seemingly serves to diversify Borges syntax, that very
diversification robs the story of the repetitive iteration of the parenthetical. In doing so, it excises
the original form of Borges interpolated structure, transforming it into something radically new
which, while functionally the same, raises fundamentally different interpretive questions, shifting
the locus of the debate from the unique way that Borges deploys parentheses to a discussion of
The discrepancies between Hurley & di Giovannis Tln as it relates to the parenthetical
are of particular interest here given Borges likely involvement in the drafting of di Giovannis.
While there is no public record of when exactly di Giovannis version was written, it is difficult to
imagine that it precedes his relationship with Borges. Thus, implicit in comparing the Spanish
original and di Giovannis translation is a comparison of the Borges of the 1940s with the Borges
of the 1970s. Viewed through this lens, it is difficult to know what to do with the excision of the
parenthetical. Should it be read as oversight on Borges part? An active decision to move away
from the interpolated structures that so thoroughly defined his early fictions? Frankly, no satisfying
answer exists. While di Giovanni has insisted that he and Borges held in common a whole
Paramo 14
groundwork of ideas which, naturally, became [their] own personal rules about what makes a
good translation, there is no clear record of these rules across any of their work together.43
While a few principles are invoked by the men across a litany of texts, the one they most
often refer to is that words having Anglo-Saxon roots are preferable to words of Latin origin.44
However, even this, the most oft-repeated of their principles, is regularly violated both in their
translations and in the original Spanish fictions. To illustrate this rejection of words of Latin
origin, Borges would often make a point of the need to ignore the impulse to, when faced with
the Spanish habitacin oscura, translate the phrase as dark habitation. Rather, the word [he
wants] is room: It is more definite, simpler, better. This hypothetical is beside the point for Borges
however, as he insists I wouldnt, of course, have written that [habitacin oscura], but cuarto
oscuro.45 Yet, Borges stories consistently use the word habitacin in exactly the way Borges
rejects namely, in Death and the Compass, The South, and The Intruder.46 It is thus
difficult to lay the blame for the Latin words which exist in the English translations on anything
but the Spanish originals. The disconnect between Borges insistence on avoiding Latinisms (and
more specifically, avoiding habitacines oscuras) while his earlier work is filled with them,
perhaps more than anything else illustrates the difficulties of translating Borges. More germanely,
it illustrates the need to read English translations of Borges as singular iterations of the broader
idiolect I have tracked here. Although there is no easy answer to the question of why di Giovanni
and Borges so starkly deviated from the interpolated syntax favored by the Borges of the 1940s, it
is simple enough to identify that to hunt for this answer in any concrete way would be to misread
both versions of Borges. In much the same way that Hurley and di Giovanni present radically
different Tlns, worlds which are nonetheless inextricable from one another, each stage of
Borges career adds something new and distinct to both his stories and his stylistic habits. This is
Paramo 15
not lessened by any shift in his theories and opinions over time. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Borges stories regularly stymy readers efforts to discern a singular philosophical claim that the
author hoped to forward because, all too often, his stories would prove homes to contradictory
ideas and impulses. The authors grammar is no different. While it may be difficult to reconcile
the authors stylistic changes with one another, particularly as they manifest in distinct versions of
Although Ive found no trace of other projects hoping to apply Barrenecheas study to the broader
library of Borges translations, to call the contribution that this paper has made in any way
original seems to miss the point. In part, this is because, like all potential works of criticism, it
has always already been included in Borges infinite Library of Babel. More concretely, this
project was pre-destined. Thirty-six years ago, Ronald Christ proposed a new model for Borges
criticism. Taking as a launching pad the tendency of Borges fiction to agitate more by concrete
outlines eight summaries or projections of works about Borges which have been conceived by
their wholly imaginary authors but never written.47 In his first, The Verbal Poverty of Jorge Luis
Borges, he imagines an author who, beginning with Ana Mara Barrenecheas exhaustive list of
Borges most expressive words, hopes to identify the heart of Borges. While this is not my
exact project, my conclusion feels inextricable from that of Christs fictitious author: the author
concludes by refusing to see his list of key words as final and suggests the possibility of other,
equally valid lists.48 Although cataloging the additions that every one of Borges translators made
to the Borgesian idiolect would be impossible, I hope that my reckoning with Hurley and di
Paramo 16
Giovanni lays the groundwork for a far more expansive project one that likely transcends the bi-
lingual focus I maintained throughout my work here and that, in time, does away with the very
divisions between English, French, and mere Spanish that currently necessitates the diffusion of
Paramo 17
Appendix 1
Ana Mara Barrenechea has catalogued an extensive list of words that comprise Borges rhetorical
toolbox. Included here are the words she identified in the 2nd edition of La expresion de la
irrealidad en a obra de Borges and in the 1st edition of Borges the Labyrinth Maker, sorted
according to the chapter in which she identifies them.1
1. El Infinito
2. El caos y el cosmos
Laberinto, nombre, rostro, forma, teher, entretejer, urdir, barajar, intrincado, inextricable, tortuoso,
sinuoso, dibujo, forma, mapa, sombra, sueo, reflejo, copia, simulacro, imagen, predicado, epiteto,
arcano, oculto, recondite, invisible, oscuro, secreto, sospechar, prefigurar, conjeturar, secreto,
oscuro, central, ciego, elemental, fundamental, irresistible, profundo.
4. El tiempo y la eternidad
Morir, rojo, sangre, heridas, mutilacin, desgarramiento, cicatrices, enloquecer, tiranizar, crimen,
espadas, maniatada, quejas, irrecuperable, fantasma, desdibujarse, sueo, irrecuperable, azaroso.
1
Two disclaimers here: first, Barrenechea is at times repetitive in the words that she highlights this accounts for any
duplicate terms in the lists above; second, the discrepancy in the chapter numbers is due to the inclusion of a new first
chapter in the English edition of the work.
Paramo 18
2. The Infinite
Labyrinth, drawing, weave, intertwine, contrive, shuffle, intricate, inextricable, tortuous, sinuous,
name, countenance, letter, cipher, symbol, emblem, metaphor, adjective, attribute, image, form,
shape, map, mirror, dream, simulation, shadow, dream, reflection, copy, predicate, epithet, arcane,
occult, recondite, invisible, dark, obscure, secret, suspect, guess, conjecture, secret, obscure, dark,
central, blind, elemental, fundamental, irresistible, profound.
Dying, red, blood, wounds, mutilation, laceration, scars madden, tyrannize, crime, swords,
handcuffed, moan, irretrievable, phantasmal, dissolve, dream, irreplaceable, unfortunate.
Paramo 19
Bibliography
Acoca, Miguel. The Dreams & Washington Post, May 18, 1982.
Alazraki, Jaime. La prosa narrativa de Jorge Luis Borges. 2nd ed. Madrid: Editorial Gredos,
1974.
Barrenechea, Ana Mara. Borges the Labyrinth Maker. Edited and translated by Robert Lima. New
York City: New York University Press, 1965.
Barrenechea, Ana Mara. La expresion de la irrealidad en a obra de Borges. 2nd ed. Buenos Aires:
Centro Editor de Amrica Latina, 1984.
Borges, Jorge Luis. The Aleph and Other Stories 1933-1969. Edited and translated by Norman
Thomas di Giovanni. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1970.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Collected Fictions. Translated by Andrew Hurley. New York City: Penguin
Books, 1998.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Ficciones. New York City: Vintage Espaol, 1995.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Labyrinths: Selected Stories & Other Writings. Edited by Donald A. Yates &
James E. Irby. New York City: New Directions, 1964.
Borges, Jorge Luis. On Writing. Edited by Norman Thomas di Giovanni, Daniel Halpern, and
Frank MacShane. New York City: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973.
Borges, Jorge Luis. Jorge Luis Borges, The Art of Fiction No. 39. By Ronald Christ. Paris
Review 40 (Spring 1967).
Brown, Kimberly. In Borges Shadow, review of The Lesson of the Master, by Norman Thomas
di Giovanni. Janus Head 8.1 (2005): 349-51.
Christ, Ronald. A Modest Proposal for the Criticism of Borges. In The Cardinal Points of
Borges, ed. Lowell Dunham and Ivar Ivask, 7-15. Norman: U of Oklahoma Press, 1971.
de Gerayalde, Giovanna. Jorge Luis Borges: Sources and Illuminations. London: Octagon Press,
1978.
di Giovanni, Norman Thomas. The Lesson of the Master. 2nd ed. London: The Friday Project, 2011.
Kindle edition.
Paramo 20
di Giovanni, Norma Thomas. At Work With Borges. In The Cardinal Points of Borges, ed.
Lowell Dunham and Ivar Ivask, 67-76. Norman: U of Oklahoma Press, 1971.
di Giovanni, Norman Thomas, and Jorge Luis Borges. Tln, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. Norman
Thomas di Giovanni. Last modified March 25, 2012.
http://www.digiovanni.co.uk/borges/the-garden-of-branching-paths/tlon-uqbar-orbis-
tertius.htm.
Dirda, Michael. Review of Collected Fictions, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Andrew Hurley.
Washington Post, September 27, 1998, Book Reviews.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/books/reviews/collectedfictions0927.htm
Kristal, Efran. Invisible work: Borges and translation. Vanderbilt University Press, 2002.
Louis, Annick. Jorge Luis Borges: oeuvre et manoeuvres. L'Harmattan Edition, 1997.
Manguel, Alberto. The world, by Jorge, Review of Collected Fictions, by Jorge Luis Borges,
translated by Andrew Hurley. The Guardian, January 3, 1999. Books.
Molloy, Sylvia. Signs of Borges. Translated by Oscar Montero. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, 1994.
Nesbitt, Huw. Jorge Luis Borgess lost translations. The Guardian, February 19, 2010.
Sorrentino, Fernando. Seven Conversations with Jorge Luis Borges. Translated by Clark M.
Zlotchew. New York: Whitston Publishing Company, 1982.
Waisman, Sergio Gabriel. Borges and Translation: The Irreverence of the Periphery. Lewisburg:
Bucknell UP, 2005.
Paramo 21
Notes
1
Ana Mara Barrenechea, Borges the Labyrinth Maker, trans. Robert Lima (New York City: New York University
Press, 1965), viii.
2
Barrenechea, Borges, viii.
3
Barrenechea, Borges, viii.
4
Michael Dirda, Review of Collected Fictions, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Andrew Hurley, Washington
Post, September 27, 1998, Book Reviews, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/style/books/reviews/collectedfictions0927.htm
5
Kimberly Brown, In Borges Shadow, review of The Lesson of the Master, by Norman Thomas di Giovanni, Janus
Head 8.1 (2005): 349.
6
Dirda, Review of Collected Fictions. For examples of Borges and di Giovannis collaborations, see Jorge Luis
Borges, The Aleph and Other Stories 1933-1969, edited and translated by Norman Thomas di Giovanni (New York:
E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1970).
7
Miguel Acoca, The Dreams & Washington Post, May 18, 1982.
8
di Giovanni has written extensively about the unique relationship he and Borges shared. Borges himself was well-
aware of the singular nature of their relationship, going so far as too once tell an audience When we [di Giovanni and
I] attempt a translation, or re-creation, of my poems or prose in English, we dont think of ourselves as being two men.
We think we are really one mind at work. See Norman Thomas di Giovanni, The Lesson of the Master, 2nd ed,
(London: The Friday Project, 2011, Kindle edition), Location 57. For more on di Giovannis approach to translating
Borges, see Appendix 1: Borges in English, in Fernando Sorrentino, Seven Conversations with Jorge Luis Borges,
translated by Clark M. Zlotchew (New York: Whitston Publishing Company, 1982), 169-82; At Work With Borges,
In The Cardinal Points of Borges, ed. Lowell Dunham and Ivar Ivask (Norman: U of Oklahoma Press, 1971), 67-76.
9
Brown, In Borges Shadow, 349.
10
Dirda, Review of Collected Fictions.
11
Huw Nesbitt, Jorge Luis Borgess lost translations, The Guardian, February 19, 2010.
12
For Hurleys collection, see Jorge Luis Borges, Collected Fictions, translated by Andrew Hurley, (New York City:
Penguin Books, 1998).
13
The first of these quotes comes from Dirda, Review of Collected Fictions, while the latter comes from Alberto
Manguel, The world, by Jorge, Review of Collected Fictions, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Andrew Hurley,
The Guardian, January 3, 1999, Books.
14
For more on Manguels relationship with Borges, see Alberto Manguel, With Borges (London: Telegram, 2006).
15
Manguel, The world, by Jorge. Emphasis mine.
16
Besides Manguels criticisms, Hurleys translations have been further maligned by di Giovanni himself. For di
Giovannis critique of Hurleys translation of The Garden of the Forking Paths, see A Translators Guide in
Norman Thomas di Giovanni, The Lesson of the Master, Locations 2225-2300.
17
On Borges and translation see Jaime Alazraki, La prosa narrativa de Jorge Luis Borges, 2nd ed, (Madrid: Editorial
Gredos, 1974); Efran Kristal, Invisible work: Borges and translation, (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2002);
Annick Louis, Jorge Luis Borges: oeuvre et manoeuvres, (L'Harmattan Edition, 1997); and Sergio Gabriel Waisman,
Borges and Translation: The Irreverence of the Periphery, (Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 2005). Of particular interest is
Borges own discussion on the matter. For this, see Jorge Luis Borges, On Writing, edited by Norman Thomas di
Giovanni, Daniel Halpern, and Frank MacShane, (New York City: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1973), 103-160.
18
Kristal, Invisible Work, xv.
19
Waisman, Borges and Translation, 14.
20
Borges, On Writing, 104.
21
While this claim is likely universally applicable to translated texts, I limit it to Hurley here because, as noted earlier,
his are the most widely-read English translations of Borges.
22
Borges, The Aleph, 10.
23
I believe it a mere fluke that this story is still accessible the rest of the website has been notably scrubbed of di
Giovannis translations of Borges, leaving their Tln the only un-touched piece. See Norman di Giovanni & Jorge
Luis Borges, "Tln, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius," Norman Thomas di Giovanni, last modified March 25, 2012,
http://www.digiovanni.co.uk/borges/the-garden-of-branching-paths/tlon-uqbar-orbis-tertius.htm.
Paramo 22
24
See Richard Bernstein, "'Collected Fictions': Savoring a Borges Blend of Imaginings," Review of Collected
Fictions, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Andrew Hurley, The New York Times, September 9, 1998, Books of
the Times.
25
Giovanna de Gerayalde, Jorge Luis Borges: Sources and Illuminations, (London: Octagon Press, 1978), 19. For
more on this lack of a coherent Borgesian philosophy, see Barrenechea, Labyrinth Maker, 144. On thematic
throughlines throughout Borges work, see Sylvia Molloy, Signs of Borges, translated by Oscar Montero, (Durham
and London: Duke University Press, 1994).
26
Borges, Collected Fictions, 67.
27
Borges, Collected Fictions, 74.
28
References to the Spanish editions of Borges stories will refer to Jorge Luis Borges, Ficciones, (New York City:
Vintage Espaol, 1995).
29
Of course, even this number is inflated a large portion of the 44 unaltered terms are repetitions of the words
name and labyrinth, words it is difficult to imagine Hurley mis-translating.
30
Borges, Ficciones, 15; Borges, Collected Fictions, 68.
31
Barrenechea, Labyrinth Maker, 26.
32
See Dirda, Review of Collected Fictions, for a brief discussion of Hurleys translation of The Circular Ruins.
33
Borges, Ficciones, 23; Borges, Collected Fictions, 73.
34
While Yates translations fall outside my scope here, his Tln does translate remoto as remote in its first
appearance. In the second, however, remoto becomes faraway. See Jorge Luis Borges, Labyrinths: Selected
Stories & Other Writings, edited by Donald A. Yates & James E. Irby, (New York City: New Directions, 1964), 9.
35
Borges, Collected Fictions, 74. Emphasis mine.
36
Borges, Tln, Norman Thomas di Giovanni.
37
Borges, Ficciones, 24; Borges, Tln, Norman Thomas di Giovanni; Borges, Labyrinths, 9; Borges, Collected
Fictions, 73.
38
Borges Spanish uses of the words appear in Borges, Ficciones, 24; Hurleys translations in Borges, Collected
Fictions, 73.
39
Borges, Tln, Norman Thomas di Giovanni.
40
Barrenechea, Borges, 140.
41
Barrenechea, Borges, 140.
42
Borges, Ficciones, 16.
43
Di Giovanni, At Work with Borges, 69.
44
For the quote, see di Giovanni, At Work with Borges, 69. For other invocations of this principle, see di Giovanni,
The Lesson of the Master, 170; Jorge Luis Borges, interview by Ronald Christ, Jorge Luis Borges, The Art of Fiction
No. 39 Paris Review 40 (Spring 1967); Sorrentino, Seven Conversations, 176. On other rules that guided di Giovanni
and Borges translations, see Sorrentino, Seven Conversations, 175.
45
Borges, interview by Christ.
46
Ronald Christ, A Modest Proposal for the Criticism of Borges, in The Cardinal Points of Borges, edited by
Lowell Dunham and Ivar Ivask (Norman: U of Oklahoma Press, 1971) 11.
47
Christ, A Modest Proposal, 8-9.
48
Christ, A Modest Proposal, 9.
49
Borges, Tln, Norman Thomas di Giovanni.