"Quien adquiere una enciclopedia no adquiere cada línea, cada párrafo, cada página y cada grabado; adquiere la mera posibilidad de conocer alguna de esas cosas. Si ello acontece con un ente concreto y relativamente sencillo, dado el orden alfabético de las partes, ¿qué no acontecerá con un ente abstracto y variable, ondoyant et divers, como la mágica memoria de un muerto?" (Borges, 1998).
Found something cool
Borges' "Shakespeare's Memory" is a fantastic short story I happened to stumble across this morning. Interested, I began to research literary criticism on it major themes after devouring the text itself. Though it does not appear to deal thematically with Shakespeare himself, its connection to Shakespeare and the themes that it does bring up are fascinating. I ended up responding myself to the criticism given-- because I realized myself how relevant TO Shakespeare the story was. Although I agree in many respects with the criticism, I feel like it needed to be amplified to be true to Borges' opinion of Shakespeare.
What Borges says, goes
From what I have studied of Borges, his greatest appeal comes from the way he confidently investigates the metaphysical. By its very nature, that which is metaphysical is mysterious and intriguing to us all; looking simply at the quantity and diversity of world religions, the history of philosophy, etc. one realizes humanity cannot be separated with our desire to understand the bigger picture. Because Borges takes these themes down so smoothly and masterfully, it fills our imagination with awe (read "Babel's Library", "The Garden of Forking Paths", etc).
Shakespeare, Borges' hero
In an interview with Borges, Professor Ted Lyon (of BYU) asked why he didn't ever try to write anything in English, although he was taught it growing up by his grandmother. Borges replied "What, you mean, write in the language of Shakespeare? I wouldn't feel worthy" (see Dr. Lyon for details). It seems that Borges' estimation of Shakespeare is also evident in the short story, which discusses what it would be like to have Shakespeare's memory gradually take over--even replace your own--memories. The short story comments on the nature of reality and memory, and brings up the interesting theme of personal identity.
One of the basic premises of the story is that the brain is like a "palimpsest", that can be written on over and over again, and the current memories and experiences in a way wipe out all of the other aspects of of former self. This is seen when the protagonist loses control of his own faculties to remember and feels memories that he never had.
Criticism
Norma Garza Saldívar's article on the work discussed says that Borges' intent was to describe how memory can be an impetus of personal change (the palimpsest idea):
"El ejercicio de la memoria no se limita a evocar un momento determinado de una historia, no adquirimos con la memoria cada instante de una vida, más bien adquirimos con ella el poder de convocar el pasado para desencadenar una serie de relaciones y posibilidades, para abstraer y proponer con esa memoria otra forma de pensar." (See the article)
Essentially, memory not only serves 'to be there' if we care to remember, but rather to allow us the option of "unchaining the series of relationships and possibilities" to acquire a new way of thinking. That is, because we as human beings are always changing, the way we remember the past can also actually change us. If we were to fully remember the way were were (felt, acted, thought) when we were 8, 18, 28, etc, would we not be likely to change some of the things that we feel now? Would it not be fascinating?
Along these lines, I think that Saldívar's best/major point in his article is the following:
"El Yo para Borges está atravesado por el tiempo, está destinado a ser siempre otro. Un tiempo y un Yo que evocan la imagen de un palimpsesto, como aquel que recuerda Borges en su cuento “La memoria de Shakespeare”."
In other (English) words, our "ego" is a transient entity by nature; it is whimsical and subject to be changed with any wind of influence that passes our way, almost as if we assimilate to anything that presents itself. "It is destined to always be something else", he says, translated, as if it retained no solidarity of personality of its own. Basically, we adapt to our surroundings, whether those surroundings be ideas, languages, memories, etc.
I agree to a certain degree that this is the case, but it is much broader in scope than Saldívar mentions. That the soul of a person adapts to new circumstances I agree; Saldívar makes an excellent point there. When exposed to an attractive way of thinking that is not our own, I believe that we are prone to comparison. It is the condition as old as "the grass is always greener on the other side of the hill". Now, since the protagonist's life work (in the story) has to do with researching and studying Shakespeare, when he is offered his memory he cannot turn it down. The protagonist is overcome by Shakespeare and essentially becomes Shakespeare. The idea, then, is that (like we mentioned) because he was exposed to the memories powerfully, they became part of him, written on his Palimpsest (it is also important to note that one of the conditions of the story is that one has the option of heeding the memories or not- the encylopedia's pages idea). This is where Saldívar gets his argument.
My argument--that goes beyond Saldívar-- is that Borges believes that the power of Shakespeare himself is great, in and of itself, that is. We already know from a first-hand account that Borges did esteem him highly, the story is further evidence that Borges looked up to the efficacy of Shakespeare's pen. I for one certainly like to interpret the story in the light of how Shakespeare has affected my own life. Shakespeare's style is to present an idea common or Universal to society, and allow us to ponder on its significance in our own lives:
Perhaps there is something that I did a while ago which I have guilt for: then Hamlet would cause me introspection, and then the memories would help me change. Perhaps I have often felt enraged by others' actions and justified my own: then Winters Tale would cause introspection and the memories of my own life associated with it would cause me to change. See, then, how Saldívar is right? We are like Palimpsests that are changed with the writing by memories' resurgence. It is more though, since Shakespeare is the man particularly adept at helping us to do so. THAT is what "Shakespeare's Memory" is all about. I do not believe that this story can be taken out of the context of the importance of Shakespeare.
This is when it all comes back to the quote at the beginning. Borges makes a direct comparison of an Encyclopedia to Shakespeare. If knowledge is possible with the 'memory of books', how much more powerful would it be with the "mágica memoria de un muerto" (magical memory of [Shakespeare]).
It has been a rewarding to look at Shakespeare critically in this way, albeit a round-about way. All that it proves to me is that Shakespeare really is universal.
