âItâs as if each country looks for a form of antidote in the author it chooses. In Franceâs case, however, it has such a rich literary tradition that it hasnât chosen one figure, but if one goes for Hugoâclearly, Hugo isnât like the majority of French people.â
âBorges: Yes, and as RubĂ©n DarĂo said: Doubtless Homer had his own Homer. Since literature always presupposes a precursor, or a tradition. One could say that language is itself a traditionâeach language offers a range of possibilities and of impossibilities as well, or difficulties.â
âBorges: I hadnât realized, but of course, thatâs the same idea, âArt happens,â âThe spirit blows where it will.â That is, itâs the opposite of, well, a sociology of poetry, no? Of studying poetry socially, of studying the conditions that have produced poetry⊠. That reminds me of Heine, who said that the historian is a retrospective prophet, someone who prophesies what has already happened. It amounts to the same idea.â
âFerrari: Of course, a prophet in reverse.â
âBorges: Yes, someone who prophesies what has already happened, and what one already knows has happened, no? âThe prophet who looks backwardsââthe historian. Ferrari: Whoâs that from, Borges? Borges: Heine. History would be the art of divining the past, no? Ferrari: Yes, the art of the historian. Borges: Yes, once something has happened, one demonstrates that it happened inevitably. But it would be more interesting to apply that to the future. Ferrari: Thatâs more difficult than to predict the pastâitâs harder to be a prophet than a historian. Borges: Well, thatâs how literary histories are written. One takes each author, then one demonstrates the influence of his background and, then, how the work must logically stem from that author. But this method doesnât apply to the futureâ
Navigation
Backlinks
There are no backlinks to this post.