A Vindication of Eternity: Borges & the Aesthete

7/24/2019 A Vindication of Eternity: Borges & the Aesthete

1/8

Paramo 1

Rodrigo Paramo

Professor Hatfield

LIT 3382

25 October 2015

A Vindication of Eternity:

Borges & the Aesthete

El verdadero y ltimo objeto de mi conferencia ser demostrar que el

propsito del Libro de Job es que no podemos aplicar ningn epiteto

humano a Dios; no podemos medirlo segn nuestras medidas.

- J.L.B.,El libro de Job, 1967

Being an agnostic means all things are possible, even God, even the HolyTrinity. This world is so strange that anything may happen, or may not

happen. Being an agnostic makes me live in a larger, a more fantastic kind

of world, almost uncanny.

- J.L.B. 1971

Jorge Luis Borges Three Versions of Judas is, shallowly read, a direct challenge to

centuries of Judeo-Christian theology. Nils Runeberg, the storys protagonist, strives to secure a

place in history by forwarding controversial claims that run counter not only to the Churchs

accepted teachings, but also to his own deeply-held beliefs. This work to set himself apart from

his contemporaries culminates in his masterpiece, Den hemlige Walsaren, where he ultimately

equivocates Judas Iscariot with God himself. Scholars often understand Runeberg as a stand-in

for Borges, assuming that the authors agnosticism is leading him to criticize organized religion.

Such a reading largely misses the hints that Borges intertwines into his narrative, details that

regularly work to discredit the character of Runeberg. This subtle depiction of his protagonist as

unreliable and deeply narcissistic furthers a more nuanced criticism of theology than Runebergs

vacuous blasphemy would lead the reader to believe. Borges is not indicting traditional

understandings of Judas; he is rather upholding the value of Scripture as a literary text and


2/8

Paramo 2

condemning the self-important religious interpreters that Runeberg symbolizes. Three

Versions thus functions as a critique of the improperlyreligious man, with Borges proposed

alternative buried within the footnotes of his text.

Borges distancing from his protagonist is explicit in the tale, making it confusing that

the two are so often conflated. This distinction is made perhaps most clear with the narrators

descriptor of Runebergs theses, which is quickly followed by a disclaimer. The author excuses

himself from discussing Runebergs proofs, asking who could content himself with seeking out

proofs for a thing that not even he himself believes in, or whose teaching he cares naught for?

(Three Versions 164). Though it remains unclear whether it is the narrator or Borges himself

who is uninterested in the proofs, either reading creates an important foil to the protagonist,

dismissing his proofs as both uninteresting and running counter to the authors own beliefs. This

distancing is merely a prelude to the discrediting of Runeberg himself. The narrator notes that

Runebergs theses would never truly interest him, for at his core he remained a deeply religious

man (163). This disconnect is important, highlighting a moral ambiguity surrounding

Runebergs publications that could not reasonably be extended to his creator (either the unnamed

narrator or Borges). Although Borges regularly explored potentially contradicting ideas within

his works, these questions were part and parcel of a project less focused on securing his place in

history than in forcing a confrontation with all the potential realities human society must contend

with.

Runebergs shaming does not, however, end here. After publishing Kristus och Judas to

widespread criticism, he quickly changed his take on the matter and re-wrote his central

argument. The possibility of disagreement in many ways terrified Runeberg, for it threatened his


3/8

Paramo 3

ability to exist as unique within the realm of theology, necessitating an immediate shift in ideas

or the threat of irrelevance after his death. Though theory is often self-correcting and adapts in

response to criticism, Runebergs change of heart falls outside of that trajectory; he does not

change his theory to accommodate critics, but rather concedes ground to them and seeks a new

field in which to stake his place. This lack of conviction behind his arguments reveals the flimsy

ground that Runebergs status as an academic rests on, underscoring the need to distinguish

between him and Borges.

The last line to note comes towards the end of the story. After Runeberg publishes Den

hemlige Walsaren, he is shocked at the cold reception it receives. Where his previous texts were

reviled by the academic community, his magnum opus goes largely ignored. This indifference is

diagnosed by Runeberg as a ploy by God that is meant to preserve Gods secret identity and

punish Runeberg for daring to reveal it. This indirect antagonism between Borges protagonist

and his God does not on face deny either Runebergs importance or his veracity as a stand-in for

the author. However, readers familiar with Borges appreciation for the Book of Job can

decisively conclude that it serves just such a purpose.

While in conversation with Ernesto Sbato, Borges not only describes theology as

fantasy, he takes it even further and names it the perfection of the genre (Aizenberg 94). Further,

he regularly highlights the Book of Job as a work of aesthetic perfection, one which mankind can

never measure by any human metric, cementing its status as superior to human interpretations

and re-enforcing the supremacy of God himself (Libro de Job). Such an approach to theology

is also gleaned from a phrase within Three Versions: God allotted him the twentieth century

(163). Emphasizing Gods power over Runeberg works to, on multiple levels, indicate the


4/8

Paramo 4

Borgesian primacy of theology; though the author himself was an agnostic, he gave an

importance to the religious that would forever preclude a celebration of Runebergs vapid and

self-serving engagement with theory.

If the story itself didnt make this clear, the foreword published alongside it certainly

did. In it, Borges points to Lon Bloy as influencing Three Versions (Foreword 129). Bloy

began his career as a renowned agnostic, before a radical religious conversion that saw this

career preach the value of religious virtue. Though interpretation alone may be insufficient to

conclude that Three Versions upholds traditional religious doctrine, this insight from the

author goes a long way in verifying such a reading. Such authorial insight is also useful in

understanding why Borges elected to write on Judas. The value he placed on religion emphasizes

the need to choose a significant figure in religious history, and Judas shares (and thus effectively

highlights) many of the Runebergs most pronounced deficiencies.

In many ways, though Runeberg only ever forwarded three versions of Judas, the text

itself contains a fourth: Runeberg himself. Each of the three versions of Judas represents a

willingness to be stigmatized and unhappy, a fate that Runeberg consigns himself to by actively

enraging church leaders (see his first and second texts). Even his third text, received with little

fanfare, runs parallel to the third and final Judas: both men are left to live an abject existence,

the first denied his sole goal of being remembered as unique within his discipline, his subject

immortalized as betraying Jesus. This connection between Runeberg and Judas is finalized in

Runebergs name itself. Mark Harris explains and builds upon Wheelock:

Nils Runeberg...is himself a kind of nothing, a nil remembered now only by

heresiologists. He died of a ruptured aneurism, like Herbert Ashe, who also is

barely remembered. Rune can be a character in need of deciphering, and in that

sense it can stand for both Christ and Judas as mysteries. Berg is a variant of


5/8

Paramo 5

burg or town; Runeberg, then, can be a repository for mysterious symbols, and

Nils, rather than Borges, negates or ciphers both the symbol and its repository

(2).

Borges was certainly aware of the etymology of the name, and trusted that his readers would

pick up on its meaning his texts were regularly hyper-allusional, with some of his most

important commentary located in the footnotes that casual readers might dismiss as superfluous.

Three Versions continues this trend of placing significant import on its footnotes, with

Borges utilizing them to reference fictional texts and provide an air of verisimilitude to

Runebergs creations. Of note here is the reference to Jaromir Hladiks Vindication of Eternity.

Hladik is the protagonist of Borges The Secret Miracle, and his presence in this text is no

coincidence. He embodies a religious zeal similar to Runeberg, yet, is not condemned in the

same way. Rather, he is celebrated as the alternative to the self-important theologians that Three

Versions criticizes. In Miracle, Hladik is an influential Jewish author who engages in artistic

endeavors not for public recognition, but out of a devotion to his God. Borges characterizes the

man quickly and effectively. Hladik is introduced as living on Pragues Zeltnergasse, a street

that is both directly associated with Kafka (a well-respected Jewish author), and that, by the time

of Miracle, had been renamed, making the anachronistic reference even more significant.

After being arrested and condemned to death on account of his status as a prominent

Jewish author, Hladik prays for the chance to complete his most prized work before his death,

focusing not on the fame it will provide him, but on justifying [Hladik] and justify[ing God] as

well (Miracle 160). For Hladik, although justification is important, it is an internal process

he can validate his own artistic output as long as he is provided with the chance to produce it.

For Hladik, the problematic pursuit of literature constituted the whole of his life (Miracle


6/8

Paramo 6

158). In contrast to Runeberg, whose passion was centered on self-aggrandizement, Hladik seeks

aesthetic perfection on its own terms though it may be understood as instrumental to a sense of

self-worth and divine devotion, it does not need external validation. Miracle finds him

composing his finest work entirely in his mind he is granted a year to write his masterpiece, a

year that ends immediately after he selects the final word for his play. Such a dedication to the

craft resolves the quandaries Runeberg embodies religion does not necessitate discontent, far

from it. In fact, aesthetic processes can easily validate an individuals faith, as long as the author

can effectively answer the question of intent. The usage of the footnote in Three Versions, a

story located immediately after Miracle in the collection they were originally published in,

thus forces its reader to implicitly compare between the stories protagonists.

The relationship between the two stories is simple; a footnote in Three Versions refers

to the last chapter of the first volume ofEternity (165). Miracle describes the first volume as

documenting the diverse eternities that mankind has invented, from Parmenides static Being to

Hintons modifiable past (159). For Hladik, Eternity complicates the meaning of time. He

understands it as a finite concept if moments in human history were to repeat themselves, time

is proven fallacious. Reading Runeberg and his subject as foils to one another, Three Versions

must be understood as far more than a note on religion it (and its footnotes) are instead tied

directly into distinctly Borgesian themes, located in a world where time is at best uncertain. Even

reading Runeberg and Judas as separate raises an interesting question about the universality of

human experiences, searching for an explanation for the pronounced desire for individuality that

both men follow and are ultimately destroyed by. Runebergs critics note the omnipresence of

Judas betrayal; Hladik denies understandings of events occurring in a temporal sequence. The


7/8

Paramo 7

question of infinite time is nothing more than a footnote in both texts, but its inclusion leads its

readers to confront the potentiality, even in a vacuum.

Three Versions of Judas is thus both a rumination on Biblical supremacy and a piece

that grapples with concepts that permeate Borges ouvre writ large. Three Versions is an

engagement with the question of an authorial conundrum: culture places heavy emphasis on the

value of interpretation and exposure, which necessitates a public acknowledgement, but for many

authors, death will mean erasure from their field. For Runeberg, this fear of irrelevance grows to

be too much, driving him to become more and more extreme and ultimately secure the fate he

most feared for himself. For Hladik (and more broadly, Borges), authorial value is not contingent

on that process of interpretation although recognition and dialogue is valuable, it is not

necessary, and it risks overshadowing the reasons to engage in creative production. Runeberg is

immortalized in Three Versions, but he will forever be largely irrelevant. To be remembered is

one thing; to be successful is an entirely different matter.


8/8

Paramo 8

Works Cited

Aizenberg, Edna. Borges and the Book of Job. Kentucky Romance Quarterly31.1 (1984): 89-

96.

Borges, Jorge Luis. Foreword. Trans. Andrew Hurley. Collected Fictions. New York: Penguin,

1999. pp. 129. Print.

Borges, Jorge Luis. Libro de Job. Instituto Cultural Argentino-Israelde Buenos Aires. 1967.

Lecture.

Borges, Jorge Luis. The Secret Miracle. Trans. Andrew Hurley. Collected Fictions. New York:

Penguin, 1999. pp. 157-62. Print.

Borges, Jorge Luis. Three Versions of Judas. Trans. Andrew Hurley. Collected Fictions. New

York: Penguin, 1999. pp. 163-67. Print.

Harris, Mark. A New Version of Borges Three Liberty University Faculty Publications and

Presentations Paper 30 (1997): 1-9.

Shenker, Israel. "Borges, a Blind Writer With Insight." The New York Times6 April 1971.

Documents

A Vindication of Eternity: Borges & the Aesthete