FIRiriG Line

Guest: Jorge Luis Borges, author

Subject: "BORGES: SOUTH AMERICA'S TITAN"

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

T h e F I R I N G L I N E television series is a p r o d u c t i o n of the S o u t h e r n E d u c a t i o n a l
C o m m u n i c a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n , 9 2 8 W o o d r o w S t . , P.O. B o x 5 9 6 6 , C o l u m b i a , S . C . ,
2 9 2 5 0 a n d is t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h the facilities of the P u b l i c B r o a d c a s t i n g Service.
P r o d u c t i o n of these p r o g r a m s is m a d e possible t h r o u g h a g r a n t f r o m the
C o r p o r a t i o n for P u b l i c B r o a d c a s t i n g . F I R I N G L I N E c a n be seen a n d heard each
w e e k t h r o u g h p u b l i c television a n d radio stations t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y . C h e c k
y o u r local newspapers for channel a n d t i m e in y o u r area.

Board Of
FIRinG Line
SECA PRESENTS

HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

Guest: Jorge Luis Borges, author

Subject: "BORGES: SOUTH AMERICA'S TITAN"

FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL

This i s a transcript of the FIRING LINE program taped

in Buenos A i r e s , Argentina, on February 1 , 1977, and
o r i g i n a l l y telecast on PBS on February 18, 1977.

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

 1977 S O U T H E R N E D U C A T I O N A L
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
 MR. BUCKLEY: About h i m s e l f he s a i d r e c e n t l y , "As f o r a message, w e l l , I have
no message."
MR. BORGES: T h a t ' s r i g h t . T h e r e ' s no message whatever.
MR. BUCKLEY: "Some t h i n g s simply occur to me and I w r i t e them down with no aim
to h u r t anyone o r to convert anyone. T h i s i s a l l I can s a y . I make t h i s pub-
l i c c o n f e s s i o n o f my p o v e r t y before everybody. B e s i d e s , had I not done s o , you
would have known i t was t r u e . "
About him o t h e r s have w r i t t e n t h a t he i s the g r e a t e s t l i v i n g w r i t e r . Still
o t h e r s , that he has i n f l u e n c e d the l i t e r a t u r e o f the world more than anyone
alive. Jorge L u i s Borges l i v e s here in Buenos A i r e s , a l t h o u g h he has t r a v e l e d
e x t e n s i v e l y , e s p e c i a l l y in the U n i t e d S t a t e s , and t a u g h t most r e c e n t l y at
Harvard f o r a y e a r . He i s b l i n d , s i n c e the l a t e f i f t i e s . He does not mind i t ,
he s a y s , "because now he can l i v e h i s dreams with l e s s d i s t r a c t i o n . " He took
e a r l y to h i s c r a f t , t r a n s l a t i n g i n t o S p a n i s h from the E n g l i s h Oscar W i l d e ' s
The Happy Prince when he was s i x y e a r s o l d . The t r a n s l a t i o n , thought to have
been the work o f h i s f a t h e r , was used as a school t e x t . He began to p u b l i s h
in the t w e n t i e s - - p o e m s , e s s a y s , s h o r t works o f f i c t i o n . In the l a t e T h i r t i e s
he g o t - h i s f i r s t job as a menial a s s i s t a n t i n a l i b r a r y , but even t h i s he l o s t
f o r the o f f e n s e o f h a v i n g s i g n e d a d e c l a r a t i o n i n o p p o s i t i o n to General Peron
i n 1946. When Peron was o u s t e d , Mr. Borges was made d i r e c t o r o f the National
L i b r a r y , h i s l i t e r a r y work c o n t i n u i n g at an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r a t e and i n c l u d i n g
now t r a n s l a t i o n s i n t o S p a n i s h o f major American w r i t e r s . He took to l e c t u r i n g
w i d e l y , a c q u a i n t i n g many Americans with h i s w r i t i n g s and with h i m s e l f . Con-
c e r n i n g h i s work, h i s c r i t i c s d i s a g r e e except on the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i t w i l l
s u r v i v e the c e n t u r y . Mr. Borges i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y but not e n t i r e l y a p o l i t i c a l .
S i n c e A r g e n t i n a i s having i t s p r o b l e m s , I thought to b e g i n by a s k i n g : Is
there a n y t h i n g , Mr. B o r g e s , d i s t i n c t i v e l y A r g e n t i n i a n about those problems?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , I wonder. I know very l i t t l e about p o l i t i c s , but I t h i n k
we have the r i g h t government now, a government o f gentlemen, not o f hoodlums.
I d o n ' t t h i n k w e ' r e r i p e f o r democracy as yet--maybe i n a hundred y e a r s or s o .
But now I t h i n k we have the r i g h t government. I t h i n k t h a t the government
means w e l l , and the government i s a c t i n g , and as I s a i d , we are governed by
gentlemen and not by the scum o f the e a r t h , as happened, w e l l , but a s h o r t time
ago.
MR. BUCKLEY: When you say t h a t i t might be a hundred y e a r s b e f o r e - -
MR. BORGES: W e l l , o r l e t ' s say 5 0 0 , no? I f the world l a s t s .
MR. BUCKLEY: A f t e r our time?
MR. BORGES: Y e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: Why i s t h a t ? I s i t something d i s t i n c t i v e to A r g e n t i n i a n s ? Dis-
t i n c t i v e to the hemisphere? D i s t i n c t i v e to what?
MR. BORGES: I c a n ' t t e l l y o u , s i n c e I know my own c o u n t r y and am very puzzled
by my c o u n t r y . I w i s h I understood my c o u n t r y . I can o n l y love i t . I can do
what I can f o r i t . But I d o n ' t pretend to understand i t . I'm no h i s t o r i a n .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , when you say t h a t you d o n ' t understand i t , do you mean t h a t
you are c o n t i n u a l l y s u r p r i s e d by what happens?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , I am c o n t i n u a l l y s u r p r i s e d , but I t r y to l i v e i n my own p r i -
v a t e , s e c l u d e d - - i n my own p r i v a t e , l i t e r a r y w o r l d .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , do you r e c o g n i z e an o b l i g a t i o n o f the man o f l e t t e r s to
i n v o l v e h i m s e l f i n p o l i t i c s to the extent o f s a y i n g no to the b a r b a r i a n s ?
MR. BORGES: Yes. To t h a t extent I do. Not more than t h a t . I think that i f
I do my l i t e r a r y work h o n e s t l y , then i n a sense I am doing something f o r my
country. I can do n o t h i n g e l s e , being o l d , b l i n d , and l o n e l y . I can t r y to
do my work as b e s t , as well as I c a n . T h a t ' s a l l I can do. I c o u l d never i n -
v o l v e myself i n p o l i t i c s . I c o u l d never a l l o w m y s e l f to be b r i b e d . I haven't
even t r i e d to be famous, though I have become q u i t e famous. But I have done
n o t h i n g whatever t o , i n t h a t s e n s e . I ' v e merely kept on w r i t i n g , never t h i n k -
i n g o f t h a t , o f the p u b l i c , o r o f the r e a d e r s . I w r i t e to please m y s e l f . I
mean, i f I were Robinson Crusoe on a d e s e r t i s l a n d I would go on w r i t i n g , and
 I suppose I would w r i t e more o r l e s s the same k i n d o f s t u f f I'm t u r n i n g out
now.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , you were c r i t i c i z e d to be s u r e i n a l e f t j o u r n a l i n America
f o r , f o r i n s t a n c e , a d v o c a t i n g the execution o f R e g i s Debray i n B o l i v i a , i s t h a t
correct?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , t h i s was c o r r e c t . But a f t e r a l l , I t h i n k e x e c u t i o n , I t h i n k
that c a p i t a l punishment i s k i n d e r than p r i s o n . I'm not a g a i n s t c a p i t a l p u n -
ishment. I w o u l d n ' t mind being e x e c u t e d , but I w o u l d n ' t l i k e spending f i v e
years in j a i l . A c t u a l l y , I w o u l d n ' t mind being executed. In f a c t , I t h i n k I
would welcome i t , s i n c e I'm r a t h e r t i r e d o f l i f e , s i n c e l i f e has few p l e a s u r e s
l e f t to me.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , i f you i n s i s t on being e x e c u t e d , l e t me know, and I ' l l s u g -
gest a provocation,
MR. BORGES: You are t h i n k i n g o f the g e n e r a l ? But why n o t ? Maybe you are
right. He w a s n ' t being sentimental about h i m s e l f o r f e e l i n g s o r r y f o r h i m s e l f ,
or a b o u n d i n g , as K i p l i n g had i t , i n a l o t o f s e l f - p i t y . I d o n ' t t h i n k a man
s h o u l d abound i n a l o t o f s e l f - p i t y . They say I have t r i e d my b e s t not to de
so.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , do you f i n d t h i s c h a l l e n g e , t h i s i n c l i n a t i o n to s e l f - p i t y ,
a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the a g e ?
MR. BORGES: I wonder what i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the age. I know very l i t t l e
about the age. But maybe i t i s r a t h e r common h e r e , i n t h i s c o u n t r y . . People
go i n f o r being s o r r y f o r t h e m s e l v e s , which i s a p i t y , I t h i n k . Of c o u r s e , i f
you go i n f o r being s o r r y f o r y o u r s e l f , then you keep on b e i n g sadder and s a d -
d e r , no?
MR. BUCKLEY: You mean because t h e r e ' s so much t o be s o r r y f o r ?
MR. BORGES: Oh y e s . Sometimes w a l k i n g down the s t r e e t I sometimes f e e l u n -
accountably happy, and then I welcome t h a t h a p p i n e s s because I d o n ' t know where
t h a t h a p p i n e s s comes f r o m , but s t i l l i t s h o u l d be welcomed. I t h i n k happiness
s h o u l d always be welcomed.
MR. BUCKLEY: I s i t a happiness t h a t comes as a r e s u l t o f the s a t i s f a c t i o n you
take i n y o u r work?
MR. BORGES: No, p e r s o n a l l y I d i s l i k e my work. I p r e f e r the work o f any o t h e r
writer. I t h i n k t h a t every time I have not been g i v e n the Nobel P r i z e , I t h i n k
t h a t the Swedish Academy has acted j u s t l y . I d o n ' t deserve t h a t p r i z e . When
I think
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , you c e r t a i n l y d o n ' t deserve to be put i n the same c l a s s
with Quasimodo.
MR. BORGES: But I d o n ' t deserve to be put i n the same c l a s s as K i p l i n g o r
Faulkner o r Bernard Shaw.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , they c a n ' t miss a l l the time.
MR. BORGES: No.
MR. BUCKLEY: Do you mean you have o f f i c i a l l y abandoned any i n t e n t i o n o f r e -
c e i v i n g the Nobel P r i z e ?
MR. BORGES: No. I t h i n k i t i s a k i n d o f game t h a t i s played every y e a r . You
know, every y e a r I am to be g i v e n the Nobel P r i z e and then i t t u r n s out to be
next y e a r . I t ' s a kind o f h a b i t I have, o r a k i n d o f h a b i t the S c a n d i n a v i a n s
have. I n f a c t , i t might be c a l l e d an o l d Norse t r a d i t i o n , you know, not t o
g i v e me the Nobel P r i z e . T h a t ' s a p a r t o f Norse mythology. I ' m very fond o f
Norse, a l l things Scandinavian. I love a l l t h i n g s S c a n d i n a v i a n .
MR. BUCKLEY: I s i t y o u r p o i n t t h a t you would l o s e r e s p e c t i n the Nobel Com-
mittee i f they awarded you the p r i z e ?
MR. BORGES: I would t h i n k i t was a very generous m i s t a k e , but I w i l l accept
it greedily.
MR. BUCKLEY: What are you a t work on now, Mr. B o r g e s ?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , p r e c i s e l y , I am working on a book w i t h a f r i e n d o f mine,
Mario Corama, on S n o r r i S t u r l u s o n , the I c e l a n d i c h i s t o r i a n , and then I'm a l s o
w r i t i n g a book o f poems to be p u b l i s h e d by Emece i n Buenos A i r e s , and then a
book o f s h o r t s t o r i e s to be p u b l i s h e d by Emece i n Buenos A i r e s . And I'm w r i t i n g
o f f and oh a l l the time s i n c e I have n o t h i n g e l s e to do. I l i v e by m y s e l f .
MR. BUCKLEY: You say t h a t you d i s l i k e your work. Do you a l s o d i s l i k e w o r k i n g ?
MR. BORGES: No, I enjoy working but I d o n ' t l i k e the work. As C a r l y l e s a i d ,
" A l l work i s c o n t e m p t i b l e , but t h a t doing t h a t work i s not c o n t e m p t i b l e . " It
may be the o n l y j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a man. And I t h i n k he was r i g h t . Because
a f t e r a l l , when I am working I am f u l f i l l i n g my d e s t i n y . What e l s e can I do
but work? What e l s e can a b l i n d man do but work? As to the r e s u l t o f the
work, I leave t h a t to o t h e r s , and I never r e r e a d what I have w r i t t e n , except
when I have t o c o r r e c t the p r o o f s h e e t s . But I enjoy w o r k i n g , and not o n l y
w o r k i n g , but I enjoy p l a n n i n g my work, perhaps more than the a c t u a l w r i t i n g ,
o r the raw d i c t a t i n g o f i t , s i n c e w r i t i n g , o f c o u r s e , has been f o r b i d d e n to
me.
MR. BUCKLEY: You have been compared t o both M i l t o n and Homer.
MR. BORGES: W e l l , y e s , i n the sense o f being b l i n d , y e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s , but i n other s e n s e s t o o , y o u ' v e been compared to them. I
know t h a t you make i t a p r a c t i c e not to read a n y t h i n g about y o u r s e l f .
MR. BORGES: No, I ' v e o n l y read one book, a book p u b l i s h e d by a B o l i v i a n - - h i s
name was Tamayo, and an A r g e n t i n e w r i t e r , R u i z - D i a z . T h a t ' s the o n l y book
I ' v e read about me, and they t e l l me there are some 300 books t h a t have been
w r i t t e n about me. But I t h i n k the w r i t e r s s h o u l d choose a b e t t e r s u b j e c t .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , i n t h a t case I ' m i n a p o s i t i o n to i n s t r u c t you about y o u r -
self.
MR. BORGES: I suppose you a r e .
MR. BUCKLEY: You have been compared to both M i l t o n and Homer i n terms o f a
highly illuminated internal v i s i o n . I s t h i s a c o r r e c t judgment as f a r as y o u ' r e
concerned?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , I do my b e s t to t h i n k i t a c o r r e c t judgment. At l e a s t I
t r y to put up w i t h b l i n d n e s s . Of c o u r s e , when you are b l i n d , time f l o w s i n a
d i f f e r e n t way. I t f l o w s , l e t ' s s a y , on an easy s l o p e . I have sometimes spent
s l e e p l e s s n i g h t s n i g h t before l a s t , f o r examplebut I d i d n ' t r e a l l y f e e l e s -
p e c i a l l y unhappy about i t , because time was s l i d i n g down t h a t w a s f l o w i n g
down t h a t easy s l o p e .
MR. BUCKLEY: You mean y o u ' d have f e l t more unhappy i f you had been a b l e to
see?
MR. BORGES: Oh y e s , o f c o u r s e I would.
MR. BUCKLEY: Why?
MR. BORGES: I c a n ' t v e r y well e x p l a i n i t . These are the t h o u g h t s o f y e a r s .
When I f i r s t went b l i n d , I mean f o r reading p u r p o s e s , I f e l t very unhappy.
But now I f e e l t h a t being b l i n d i s , l e t ' s s a y , p a r t o f my w o r l d . I suppose
t h a t happens. O n e ' s heard about i t . When one i s i n j a i l , one t h i n k s o f being
i n j a i l as b e i n g a p a r t o f o n e ' s w o r l d ; when one i s s i c k , a l s o .
MR. BUCKLEY: How do you r e f r e s h y o u r s e l f as someone who i s b l i n d ?
MR. BORGES: I'm r e a d i n g a l l the time. I'm h a v i n g books reread to me. I do
v e r y l i t t l e contemporary r e a d i n g . But I'm o n l y g o i n g back to c e r t a i n w r i t e r s ,
and among t h o s e w r i t e r s I would l i k e t o mention an American w r i t e r . I would
l i k e t o mention Emerson. I t h i n k o f Emerson not o n l y as a g r e a t p r o s e w r i t e r
everybody knows t h a t b u t a very f i n e i n t e l l e c t u a l p o e t , as the o n l y i n t e l l e c -
t u a l poet who had any i d e a s . Emerson was brimming over w i t h i d e a s .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , you d i d a g r e a t deal to s o r t o f r e i n t r o d u c e Americans to
many American w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g Emerson, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , y e s . I ' v e done my b e s t . Emerson and a l s o another w r i t e r
I greatly love.
MR. BUCKLEY: Hawthorne?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , but i n Hawthorne What I d i s l i k e about Hawthornehe was
always w r i t i n g f a b l e s . But i n the case o f Poe, w e l l , you get t a l e s , but there
was no moral tagged on to them. But i n the case o f Hawthorne t h i n g s are always
becoming l e s s o n s o r p a r a b l e s . But I would t h i n k o f M e l v i l l e , one o f the g r e a t
 w r i t e r s o f the w o r l d , no?
MR. BUCKLEY; How do you account f o r the f a i l u r e o f M e l v i l l e to achieve any
recognition during h i s 1ifetime--any s i g n i f i c a n t recognition?
MR. BORGES: Because people thought o f him as w r i t i n g t r a v e l books. I have
the 1911 e d i t i o n o f the Encyclopedia Britannica. T h e r e ' s an a r t i c l e about
M e l v i l l e , and they speak o f him much i n the same way as they might speak about
Captain M a r r y a t , f o r example, o r o t h e r w r i t e r s . He wrote many t r a v e l b o o k s ;
people thought o f him as w r i t i n g i n t h a t way, so they c o u l d n ' t see a l l t h a t
Moby Dick o r the white whale meant.
MR. BUCKLEY: What p a r t d i d you play i n the r e d i s c o v e r y o f M e l v i l l e ?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i n t h i s c o u n t r y I ' v e done what I c o u l d , I suppose.
MR. BUCKLEY: Had i t a l r e a d y been t r a n s l a t e d when you were a s t u d e n t ?
MR. BORGES: N o , when I was a s t u d e n t i t h a d n ' t been t r a n s l a t e d . I t was
t r a n s l a t e d a f t e r w a r d s , and I t r a n s l a t e d a very f i n e s t o r y o f M e l v i l l e ' s ; y o u
know i t o f c o u r s e , " B a r t l e b y . "
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s . You t r a n s l a t e d t h a t f o r the f i r s t time?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , f o r the f i r s t time. Then I a l s o t h i n k we d i d the f i r s t t r a n s -
l a t i o n o f Hawthorne's Wakefield, a very f i n e s t o r y a f t e r t h e manner o f K a f k a ,
or r a t h e r Kafka came a f t e r h i m , no? But Kafka enables us t o read Hawthorne
b e t t e r , which i s what a g r e a t w r i t e r does. I n a sense he graces the f o r e -
r u n n e r s . He makes people read them i n a d i f f e r e n t way. But maybe I s h o u l d n ' t
have read Hawthorne's Wakefield as well as I d i d , o r as I should have done, had
I not read Kafka b e f o r e . I t h i n k t h a t ' s one o f the f u n c t i o n s , one o f the g i f t s
o f a g r e a t w r i t e r , i s to make people read i n a d i f f e r e n t way, go o v e r the o l d
t e x t s i n a d i f f e r e n t f a s h i o n , s o the past has been c o n t i n u a l l y m o d i f i e d .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s . Well now, y o u s a y t h a t you spend most o f your time r e a d i n g
the o l d e r w r i t e r s now. I s i t because you r e j e c t the new w r i t e r s , o r because
you choose t o c o n t i n u e t o be u n f a m i l i a r with them?
MR. BORGES: I am a f r a i d t h a t I ' d f i n d the new w r i t e r s more o r l e s s l i k e m y s e l f .
MR. BUCKLEY: You w o n ' t .
MR. BORGES: I suppose I w i l l . I suppose a l l contemporaries are more or l e s s
a l i k e , no? S i n c e I d i s l i k e what I w r i t e , I p r e f e r g o i n g back t o the 1 9 t h , t o
the 18th c e n t u r y , and t h e n , o f c o u r s e , a l s o g o i n g back to the Romans, s i n c e I
have no Greek, but I had L a t i n . Of c o u r s e , my L a t i n i s very r u s t y , but s t i l l ,
as I once w r o t e , t o have f o r g o t t e n L a t i n i s a l r e a d y , i s i n i t s e l f a g i f t . To
have known L a t i n and t o have f o r g o t t e n i t i s something t h a t s t i c k s t o y o u some-
how. I have done most o f my r e a d i n g i n E n g l i s h . I read very l i t t l e i n S p a n i s h .
I was educated p r a c t i c a l l y i n my f a t h e r ' s l i b r a r y , and t h a t was compounded o f
E n g l i s h books. So t h a t when I t h i n k o f the B i b l e , I t h i n k o f the King James
B i b l e . When I t h i n k o f the Arabian Nights I t h i n k o f L a n e ' s t r a n s l a t i o n o r o f
Captain B u r t o n ' s t r a n s l a t i o n . When I t h i n k o f c o u r s e o f P e r s i a n l i t e r a t u r e ,
I t h i n k i n terms o f Browne's Literary History_ of Persia, and o f c o u r s e o f
Fitzgerald's. And f r a n k l y , I remember the f i r s t book I read on the h i s t o r y o f
South America was P r e s c o t t ' s The Conquest of Peru.
MR. BUCKLEY: I s t h a t r i g h t ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , and then I f e l l back on S p a n i s h w r i t e r s , but I have done most
o f my r e a d i n g i n E n g l i s h . I f i n d E n g l i s h a f a r f i n e r language than S p a n i s h .
MR. BUCKLEY: Why?
MR. BORGES: There a r e many r e a s o n s . F i r s t l y , E n g l i s h i s both a Germanic and
a L a t i n l a n g u a g e , those two r e g i s t e r s . For example, f o r any idea y o u take
you have two words. Those words do not mean e x a c t l y the same. For example,
i f I s a y " r e g a l , " i t ' s not e x a c t l y the same t h i n g as s a y i n g " k i n g l y . " Or i f
I s a y " f r a t e r n a l , " i t ' s not s a y i n g the same as " b r o t h e r l y , " o r " d a r k " and
" o b s c u r e . " Those words are d i f f e r e n t . I t would make a l l the d i f f e r e n c e ,
s p e a k i n g , f o r example, o f the Holy S p i r i t i t would make a l l the d i f f e r e n c e i n
the world i n a poem i f I wrote about the Holy S p i r i t o r I wrote " t h e Holy
G h o s t , " s i n c e " g h o s t " i s a f i n e , dark Saxon w o r d , when " s p i r i t " i s a l i g h t
L a t i n word. And then there i s another r e a s o n . The reason i s t h a t I t h i n k t h a t
o f a l l l a n g u a g e s , E n g l i s h i s the most p h y s i c a l o f a l l l a n g u a g e s . You c a n , f o r
example, s a y , "He loomed o v e r . " You c a n ' t very well say t h a t i n S p a n i s h .
MR. BUCKLEY: Asomo?
MR. BORGES: No, t h e y ' r e not e x a c t l y the same. And t h e n , i n E n g l i s h y o u can do
almost a n y t h i n g w i t h v e r b s and p r e p o s i t i o n s . For example, t o " l a u g h o f f , " t o
"dream away." Those t h i n g s c a n ' t be s a i d i n S p a n i s h . To " l i v e down" s o m e t h i n g ,
to " l i v e up t o " something. You c a n ' t s a y t h o s e t h i n g s i n S p a n i s h . They c a n ' t
be s a i d ; i t ' s a Romance language. I suppose they can be s a i d i n German, a l -
though my German r e a l l y i s n ' t too good. I t a u g h t m y s e l f German f o r the sake
o f r e a d i n g Schopenhauer i n the t e x t . That was way back i n 1 9 1 6 . I had read
Schopenhauer i n E n g l i s h ; I was g r e a t l y a t t r a c t e d t o Schopenhauer, and then I
thought I would t r y and read him i n the t e x t and then I t a u g h t m y s e l f German.
And a t long l a s t I read Die Welt als mile und Vorstellung i n the t e x t , and
Pavevga und Paralipomena a l s o .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , do y o u w r i t e y o u r poetry i n E n g l i s h or i n S p a n i s h ?
MR. BORGES: No, I r e s p e c t E n g l i s h too much. I w r i t e i t i n S p a n i s h .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , do you pass on the t r a n s l a t i o n s ? Do you p e r s o n a l l y pass
on the t r a n s l a t i o n s o r do y o u s i m p l y e n t r u s t them t o people l i k e K e r r i g a n o r
di G i o v a n n i ?
MR. BORGES: No, I have people l i k e A l i s t a i r R e i d , di G i o v a n n i , and K e r r i g a n ,
who are g r e a t l y b e t t e r at my t e x t s . They are g r e a t l y b e t t e r than t h a t i n the
t r a n s l a t i o n . And then o f c o u r s e i n S p a n i s h words are f a r too cumbersome.
T h e y ' r e f a r t o o l o n g . W e l l , I go t o one o f my h o b b i e s . For example, i f y o u
take an E n g l i s h a d v e r b , o r two E n g l i s h a d v e r b s , you say f o r i n s t a n c e " q u i c k l y , "
" s l o w l y , " and then the s t r e s s f a l l s on the s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t o f the word.
Quickly. Slowly. But i f you s a y i t i n S p a n i s h , you say lentamente,
rapidamente. And then the s t r e s s f a l l s on the n o n s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t .
MR. BUCKLEY: R i g h t . Right.
MR. BORGES: And a l l t h a t makes a very cumbersome l a n g u a g e .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s .
MR. BORGES: But s t i l l , S p a n i s h i s my d e s t i n y , i t ' s my f a t e , and I have t o do
what I can w i t h S p a n i s h .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , does the f a c t t h a t the S p a n i s h language i s l e s s r e s o u r c e -
f u l than the E n g l i s h language n e c e s s a r i l y make i t l e s s complete as p o e t r y ?
MR. BORGES: No, I t h i n k t h a t when poetry i s achieved i t can be a c h i e v e d i n
any language. I t ' s more than a f i n e S p a n i s h v e r s e ; t h a t c o u l d h a r d l y be t r a n s -
l a t e d t o another l a n g u a g e . I t would t u r n t o something e l s e . But when beauty
happens, w e l l , t h e r e i t i s . No? What W h i s t l e r s a i d - - p e o p l e were d i s c u s s i n g
art in Paris. People spoke a b o u t , w e l l , the i n f l u e n c e o f h e r e d i t y , t r a d i t i o n ,
environment, and s o o n , and then W h i s t l e r s a i d i n h i s l a z y way, " A r t happens."
MR. BUCKLEY: A r t happens.
MR. BORGES: " A r t h a p p e n s , " he s a i d . And I t h i n k t h a t ' s t r u e . I s h o u l d say
t h a t beauty happens. Sometimes I t h i n k t h a t beauty i s not something r a r e . I
t h i n k beauty i s happening a l l the time. A r t i s happening a l l the time. At
some c o n v e r s a t i o n a man may say a v e r y f i n e t h i n g , not being aware o f i t . I
am h e a r i n g f i n e sentences a l l the time from the man i n the s t r e e t , f o r exam-
ple. From anybody.
MR. BUCKLEY: So y o u c o n s i d e r y o u r s e l f a t r a n s c r i b e r , t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t .
MR. BORGES: Y e s , i n a sense I d o , and I t h i n k t h a t I have w r i t t e n some f i n e
l i n e s , o f c o u r s e . Everybody has w r i t t e n some f i n e l i n e s . T h a t ' s not my
privilege. I f y o u ' r e a w r i t e r y o u ' r e bound t o w r i t e something f i n e , a t l e a s t
now and t h e n , o f f and o n .
MR. BUCKLEY: Even L o n g f e l l o w ?
MR. BORGES: L o n g f e l l o w has some very b e a u t i f u l l i n e s . I ' m very o l d - f a s h i o n e d ,
but I l i k e " T h i s i s the f o r e s t p r i m e v a l , the murmuring p i n e s and the hemlock."
T h a t ' s a very f i n e l i n e .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s , y e s .
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t know why people look down on L o n g f e l l o w . Maybe he was
 too much o f a l i t e r a r y man, no? He was much the same k i n d o f poet as Ezra
Pound. I mean he took m o s t l y from books and not from h i s own e x p e r i e n c e . But
h i s t r a n s l a t i o n o f the Divine Comedy i s a very f i n e t r a n s l a t i o n . In f a c t , I
read i t i n E n g l i s h before I read i t i n I t a l i a n .
MR. BUCKLEY: You d i d ? Whose t r a n s l a t i o n ?
MR. BORGES: L o n g f e l l o w ' s t r a n s l a t i o n .
MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, I s e e .
MR. BORGES: And I beganbecause I ' v e always been a b i t o f a p r i g - - b y r e a d i n g
f i r s t l y the notes and then the t e x t . The f i r s t t h i n g I read was the n o t e s , as
a boy. Then I went on to the t e x t . Then I took up the t e x t . That must have
been more than 30 y e a r s ago. Then I found out t h a t I had no n e c e s s i t y o f
knowing I t a l i a n , t h a t i f I had S p a n i s h I had I t a l i a n , and t h a t the Divine
Comedy c o u l d be read by anybody who had S p a n i s h . A f t e r a l l , the languages are
much the same. The I t a l i a n e d i t i o n s o f the Commedia a r e v e r y f i n e , the
M o m i g l i a n o , f o r example, o r the Grabher. T h e r e ' s a note t o almost every l i n e .
I f you d o n ' t understand the v e r s e i t s e l f you can always f a l l back on the n o t e s .
T h e y ' r e very i n t e r e s t i n g . I t h i n k I ' v e read the Divine Comedy some 11 o r 12
times o v e r , and I have no I t a l i a n . I c o u l d n ' t t a l k to an I t a l i a n , o r see an
I t a l i a n f i l m , o r hear an I t a l i a n f i l m . I c o u l d n ' t understand i t . I have no
I t a l i a n b l o o d . But somehow I t a l i a n and S p a n i s h , w e l l , t h e y ' r e s o a l i k e .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , would you understand i t i f i t were read to y o u ?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . I f i t were read t o me i t would be read too
quickly.
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s .
MR. BORGES: When I am t r y i n g t o understand a l i n e i n I t a l i a n , then o f course
I can reread i t .
MR. BUCKLEY: These thoughts go through y o u r mind t h a t you t r a n s c r i b e , as you
put i t , i n t o prose and p o e t r y .
MR. BORGES: I wonder i f t h e r e ' s an e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e . I don't think so.
I t h i n k the g i s t i s the same. I f an idea comes t o me I d o n ' t know whether i t
w i l l become a t a l e , become a s h o r t s t o r y , o r a s o n n e t , o r maybe an example o f
f r e e v e r s e . That comes a f t e r w a r d s . F i r s t I see the whole t h i n g from a f a r .
Then somehow i t has t o be l i c k e d i n t o shape.
MR. BUCKLEY: Now, t h i s was as much t r u e when you c o u l d s e e , as s i n c e ?
MR. BORGES: Oh y e s , a l w a y s . Y e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: The technique was always the same?
MR. BORGES: The technique was always the same. The technique i s the t e c h -
nique o f b e i n g , l e t ' s s a y , an o n l o o k e r , o f s e e i n g t h i n g s , but s e e i n g them at
f i r s t i n a very m i s t y way, and then a f t e r w a r d s , w e l l , g e t t i n g nearer them,
seeing them c l o s e r . But i n the case o f a s t o r y i n the case o f a s t o r y o r i n
the case o f a poem, I always know the b e g i n n i n g and the end. G e n e r a l l y I
know the f i r s t l i n e and the l a s t l i n e , o r a t l e a s t what w i l l happen. But
then I have t o f i n d out what happens i n between, no? Then o f course I have
to grope and maybe l o s e my way and maybe go back.
MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, you do have t o s t r u g g l e i n between, do y o u ?
MR. BORGES: Oh, o f c o u r s e I do. But the s t r u g g l e i s p a r t o f the game.
MR. BUCKLEY: T h a t ' s not merely an a c t o f t r a n s c r i p t i o n .
MR. BORGES: No, i t i s n ' t , but the s t r u g g l e makes f o r enjoyment.
MR. BUCKLEY: Do you know at the o u t s e t t h a t you a r e g o i n g to s u c c e e d , i f you
know the f i r s t and l a s t l i n e s ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , I know. But I wonder i f I have succeeded. People say I have
now and then.
MR. BUCKLEY: I t h i n k there i s a l o t o f agreement on t h a t p o i n t .
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i f I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n democracy, why s h o u l d I b e l i e v e i n a
l o t o f agreement? A f t e r a l l , those are mere s t a t i s t i c s .
MR. BUCKLEY: I s there a c r i t i c a l democracy i n which you do b e l i e v e , o r do
you f i n d t h a t the o p i n i o n o f the c r i t i c s i s o f t e n mistaken so t h a t very l i t t l e
e x p e r t i s e l i e s i n the f i e l d ?
 MR. BORGES: Having been a c r i t i c I know t h a t t h e i r o p i n i o n s are g e n e r a l l y m i s -
taken. In f a c t , I have been mistaken many t i m e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: Can you g i v e an example o f someone whose r e p u t a t i o n was f o r y e a r s
mistaken? I s M e l v i l l e a good example?
MR. BORGES: M e l v i l l e might be. M e l v i l l e , now, I t h i n k holds h i s own, no?
And he s h o u l d . But not i n a l l h i s books.
MR. BUCKLEY: I s t h e r e a l i v i n g w r i t e r who i s v a s t l y u n d e r - a p p r e c i a t e d ?
MR. BORGES: I know v e r y l i t t l e about l i v i n g w r i t e r s . In my case I would say
t h a t I am o v e r r a t e d , g r e a t l y o v e r r a t e d . My s t u f f i s g r e a t l y o v e r r a t e d .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , what about Neruda?
MR. BORGES: Neruda, when he was a sentimental p o e t , was q u i t e bad. When he
was a Communist he wrote very f i n e p o e t r y . That means t h a t communism was the
kind o f food he needed, even as Walt Whitman needed democracy, no? But I
t h i n k Neruda i s a f i n e poet. In f a c t , I was i n Stockholm once upon a time f o r
a f a i r t h i s was more o r l e s s on the eve o f the j u d g m e n t
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s .
MR. BORGES: And I s a i d , w e l l , i f they choose me they make a m i s t a k e . Of
c o u r s e , I would grab the p r i z e i f I can. But I t h i n k the t r u e c a n d i d a t e s t h o s e
two candidates would be Pablo Neruda and Jorge G u i l l e n , at l e a s t i n the S p a n i s h
language.
MR. BUCKLEY: What about Gabriel Marquez?
MR. BORGES: G a b r i e l Marquez? I t h i n k he wrote but one book. I t h i n k the
book f a l l s o f f , no? I t h i n k i t b e g i n s w e l l , but then at the end the w r i t e r i s
the s t y l e o f the r e a d e r , perhaps.
MR. BUCKLEY: What about C o r t a z a r ?
MR. BORGES: I know very l i t t l e about him. I was e d i t i n g a l i t e r a r y magazine,
and a young man came to see me. He brought a m a n u s c r i p t and he came back
w i t h i n 10 days and I t o l d him the s t o r y was g o i n g to be p u b l i s h e d , and I s a i d ,
"Would you i l l u s t r a t e i t ? " That s t o r y was " L a Casa Tomar" by J u l i o C o r t a z a r .
And then I met him in P a r i s and I reminded him o f the i n c i d e n t . But I h a v e n ' t
read h i s other books. That s t o r y i s a very f i n e s t o r y , y e s , I s h o u l d say so.
MR. BUCKLEY: Are there any of these w r i t e r s , Mr. B o r g e s , whose work s i m p l y
r e s i s t s t r a n s l a t i o n s i n t o S p a n i s h , f o r i n s t a n c e , Nabokov?
MR. BORGES: I wonder i f he has been t r a n s l a t e d .
MR. BUCKLEY: I d o n ' t know.
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k s o .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , t h e n , he does r e s i s t , I g u e s s .
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i n the case o f J o y c e , o f c o u r s e , w e l l , he c a n ' t be t r a n s -
lated. I d o n ' t t h i n k James Joyce c o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d , u n l e s s you i n v e n t i t .
Of c o u r s e , i n the case o f James J o y c e , h i s c r a f t i s p a r t o f the l a n g u a g e . I
mean t h a t k i n d o f t h i n g c a n ' t be t r a n s l a t e d . For example, "the r i v e r i n g waters
o f t h e h i t h e r i n g , t h i t h e r i n g waters o f n i g h t . " How can you t r a n s l a t e t h a t ?
How do you t r a n s l a t e " r i v e r i n g waters o f " ?
MR. BUCKLEY: I t ' s l i k e t r a n s l a t i n g Lewis C a r r o l l .
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i t c a n ' t be done.
MR. BUCKLEY: No.
MR. BORGES: I t can be done in German, because German i s more o r l e s s a k i n to
E n g l i s h , but not i n S p a n i s h . S p a n i s h , the whole t h i n g i s r a t h e r lame, you
know?
MR. BUCKLEY: I s Shakespeare s u c c e s s f u l l y t r a n s l a t e d i n t o S p a n i s h ?
MR. BORGES: No. Shakespeare a l s o , I mean he was i n v o l v e d i n m u s i c , i n w o r d -
c r a f t . That k i n d o f t h i n g c a n ' t be t r a n s l a t e d . I attempted a t r a n s l a t i o n of
Macbeth, and then a f t e r a scene o r two I f e l t I c o u l d n ' t do i t and I l e f t i t .
But Macbeth would be my f a v o r i t e S h a k e s p e a r i a n t r a g e d y . I t ' s so i n t e n s e . It
b e g i n s at f u l l speed and then goes on t i l l the e n d , no?
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s , r i g h t . Are you one o f the l a s t admirers o f K i p l i n g ?
MR. BORGES: I hope I am not one o f the l a s t . I t h i n k K i p l i n g was a very
g r e a t man.
MR. BUCKLEY: I know you do. But h e ' s not very w i d e l y a p p r e c i a t e d , o r even
r e a d , i s he?
MR. BORGES: No, because h e ' s judged by h i s p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n s . I suppose
o p i n i o n s are on the s u r f a c e . I d o n ' t t h i n k a w r i t e r s h o u l d be judged by h i s
opinions. I t h i n k when you w r i t e you s h o u l d be judged by what you w r i t e , and
you d o n ' t w r i t e y o u r o p i n i o n s . O p i n i o n s , a f t e r a l l , are on the s u r f a c e . They
come and go. People h o l d many d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s d u r i n g t h e i r l i f e t i m e . In
the case o f K i p l i n g , he was a very wise man a l s o , and h i s w o r d - c r a f t i s won-
derful. I remember, f o r example, "Harp Song o f the Dane Women." You see how
s t a r k the t i t l e o f the poem i s . I t d o e s n ' t even sound l i k e E n g l i s h . I t might
be Old E n g l i s h , o r Old Norse. "Harp Song o f the Dane Women," and then " S i c k -
en again f o r the shouts and the s l a u g h t e r s . " There you get the Old E n g l i s h
rhyme and a l l i t e r a t i o n . " S i c k e n a g a i n f o r the s h o u t s and the s l a u g h t e r s . "
Y e s , y e s . He was a very f i n e w r i t e r .
MR. BUCKLEY: Was he a p p r e c i a t e d i n y o u r c h i l d h o o d i n S p a n i s h , o r n o t ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , he was. But people t h i n k o f h i m I t h i n k i f a w r i t e r w r i t e s
f o r c h i l d r e n he makes a m i s t a k e . I mean, as concerns h i s own fame, because
people t h i n k o f him as w r i t i n g o n l y f o r c h i l d r e n . The case o f S t e v e n s o n , f o r
example. Why do people look down on S t e v e n s o n ? Because they t h i n k o n l y o f
Treasure Island, a very f i n e book, but a book meant f o r b o y s . But had they
read h i s other books they would see he was a very f i n e w r i t e r a l s o . So perhaps
he made a m i s t a k e . For a w r i t e r to attempt, l e t ' s s a y , b o y s ' f i c t i o n , o r to
attempt d e t e c t i v e f i c t i o n b e c a u s e people tend to t h i n k o f him i n terms o f t h a t
p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f c r a f t . And I suppose i n the case o f C h e s t e r t o n , people know
t h a t he was a v e r y . f i n e w r i t e r , but i f people t h i n k o f the Father Brown s t o r i e s
then they are apt to c l a s s him w i t h w h a t ? w i t h E l l e r y Queen, o r w i t h even
Ph i l l p o t t s
MR. BUCKLEY: Agatha C h r i s t i e .
MR. BORGES: Or Agatha C h r i s t i e , y e s . But o f course h e ' s f a r above them.
MR. BUCKLEY: I s i t a m i s t a k e
MR. BORGES: I t would be a mistake f o r the fame o f a w r i t e r , not f o r the w r i t e r
h i m s e l f , because, a f t e r a l l , i f the Father Brown s t o r i e s d i d n ' t e x i s t I would
feel i t was a g r e a t l o s s , at l e a s t to me. But at the same time i t has done
no good to h i s r e p u t a t i o n .
MR. BUCKLEY: Would you go so f a r as to say t h a t a w r i t e r who seeks fame ought
not to w r i t e books t h a t c h i l d r e n can e n j o y a b l y r e a d ?
MR. BORGES: No.
MR. BUCKLEY: What about T o l k i e n , f o r i n s t a n c e ?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , T o l k i e n I have o n l y found him u t t e r boredom. I have never
got i n s i d e h i s books. I have always been an o u t s i d e r . I attempted t h a t
"Brotherhood--" I s i t the " B r o t h e r h o o d o f the R i n g s " ?
MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. The " L o r d s h i p o f the R i n g s , " i s n ' t i t ?
MR. BORGES: The " L o r d s h i p o f the R i n g . " I d o n ' t know. But i n any case no
r i n g s were awarded me. I t r i e d to enjoy him; I d i d my b e s t . I was i n S c o t l a n d
at the t i m e , was d o i n g American t h e a t e r , read h i m , laughed very l o u d l y , but at
the same time I f e l t I got n o t h i n g out o f r e a d i n g . To compare him to Lewis
C a r r o l l i s blasphemy. I'm so fond o f Lewis C a r r o l l . No, but I t h i n k a w r i t e r
s h o u l d not w r i t e j u s t f o r c h i l d r e n , because t h a t may harm h i s r e p u t a t i o n , and
a f t e r a l l , r e p u t a t i o n s are w o r t h w h i l e . I t ' s more than j u s t the work i t s e l f ,
i t ' s the enjoyment o f what you are d o i n g . I o n l y t h i n k o f r e a d i n g and of
w r i t i n g i n terms o f h a p p i n e s s . I f you d o n ' t f e e l happy when y o u ' r e r e a d i n g o r
when y o u ' r e w r i t i n g , o r i f you d o n ' t feel g r e a t l y moved, then you are not
r e a l l y reading or w r i t i n g . The whole t h i n g i s merely r e a d i n g , I mean f o r
examination marks, and t h a t , o f c o u r s e I w o n ' t say t h a t way madness l i e s ,
but t h a t ' s the way d u l l n e s s l i e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: Are you s a y i n g t h a t w r i t e r s s h o u l d enjoy w r i t i n g ?
MR. BORGES: Of course they s h o u l d . At l e a s t I do. I mean i t . I have t o t o i l ,
I have to work, but at the same time I am e n j o y i n g i t . A f t e r a l l , I have
 chosen that l i t e r a r y f a t e f o r m y s e l f .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , do you t h i n k t h a t gymnasts s h o u l d e n j o y
MR. BORGES: I know n o t h i n g whatever o f gymnasts, so whatever I s a y
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , ought they to enjoy t h e i r e x e r c i s e s , would you s a y ? Are
you making a u n i v e r s a l statement t h a t a l l people s h o u l d enjoy t h e i r work?
MR. BORGES: No, I suppose sweeping statements s h o u l d be a v o i d e d , and t h a t ' s a
sweeping statement a l s o . Maybe when one t a l k s one f a l l s i n t o sweeping s t a t e -
ments, no? I n f a c t , i f y o u ' r e t a l k i n g you are making a sweeping statement.
To say A i s B i s a sweeping statement. I t may not be always B; i t may be
something e l s e . But I enjoy w r i t i n g . I t ' s one o f the few enjoyments l e f t .
MR. BUCKLEY: So as you put i t , you would w r i t e even i f you were Robinson
Crusoe and there was no p o s s i b i l i t y
MR. BORGES: W e l l , t h a t ' s the o n l y t h i n g I c o u l d do would be to w r i t e .
MR. BUCKLEY: You could b u i l d c a n o e s .
MR. BORGES: No, my canoes would be h a r d l y worth the b u i l d i n g . I d o n ' t think
I ' d be any good at t h a t kind o f c r a f t or any o t h e r .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y o u ' d r a t h e r w r i t e a book about how to b u i l d a canoe than b u i l d
a canoe, r i g h t ?
MR. BORGES: Oh, y e s , o f course I would. Or maybe I would choose another
subject.
MR. BUCKLEY: What in y o u r judgment i s the new P h i l i s t i n i s m about which there
i s a l o t o f t a l k these d a y s ?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t know. There are so many P h i l i s t i n i s m s i n v o l v e d .
MR. BUCKLEY: Which i s the one to which you have a s p e c i a l a l l e r g y ?
MR. BORGES: I hate n a t i o n a l i s m .
MR. BUCKLEY: As d i s t i n g u i s h e d from p a t r i o t i s m ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s . I think nationalism is a mistake. I t h i n k t h a t we are a l l
more o r l e s s n a t i o n a l i s t i c . Maybe I am. When you say " A r g e n t i n i a n " I am very
angry. There i s no such word. The word s h o u l d be " A r g e n t i n e . " "Argentinian"
i s an i n v e n t i o n , a word t h a t rhymes with B o l i v i a n or P e r u v i a n . T h e r e ' s no
such word, s i n c e " A r g e n t i n e " i s an a d j e c t i v e .
MR. BUCKLEY: " A r g e n t i n e " i s an a d j e c t i v e .
MR. BORGES: Of c o u r s e . The A r g e n t i n e R e p u b l i c . Yes, Argentine i s s i l v e r ,
because o f the R i o de l a P l a t a . S i l v e r R i v e r . Silver River, yes. Argen-
t i n i a n n o such word.
MR. BUCKLEY: I n E n g l i s h , you mean?
MR. BORGES: No, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e i s such a word. In S p a n i s h t h e r e ' s no
such word. You would say Republioa Argentiniana, i n s t e a d o f Republioa
Argentina. I f you s a i d Argentiniana, people would s t a r e at y o u .
MR. BUCKLEY: How common i s t h a t e r r o r ?
MR. BORGES: Yes. I was asked a l l the time when I was i n the S t a t e s p e o p l e
asked me "Are you A r g e n t i n i a n ? " And I s a i d , " N o , t h e r e ' s no such t h i n g . "
" A r e you S p a n i a r d ? " W e l l , I l e f t o f f being a S p a n i a r d 150 y e a r s ago. "Are
you L a t i n American?" W e l l , no. Who knows what a L a t i n American i s ? There's
no such t h i n g . I mean a man i s a Colombian, a P e r u v i a n , a B o l i v i a n o r a
Uruguayan, but h a r d l y a L a t i n American. T h e r e ' s no such t h i n g .
MR. BUCKLEY: Or an A r g e n t i n e .
MR. BORGES: Or an A r g e n t i n e , why n o t ? I do my b e s t to be a good A r g e n t i n e .
MR. BUCKLEY: And you say you detect t h i s n a t i o n a l i s m even i n y o u r s e l f ? Do
you detect a l o t o f i t i n c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e ?
MR. BORGES: I d e t e c t i t in m y s e l f .
MR. BUCKLEY: You do?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t know why, f o r example, I w r i t e so much about such an i n -
v i s i b l e , such a d u l l c i t y as Buenos A i r e s , and y e t I love i t . Why w r i t e so
much about m y s e l f ? I'm not an i n t e r e s t i n g c h a r a c t e r . And y e t I keep on being
i n t e r e s t e d in Jorge L u i s B o r g e s . I d o n ' t know why. S t i l l i t ' s a l i f e l o n g
habit.
MR. BUCKLEY: One o f the books about you s a y s t h a t your most i n t e n s e e x p e r i -
ences are a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l .
MR. BORGES: I suppose they a r e .
MR. BUCKLEY: But t h a t d o e s n ' t mean e i t h e r t h a t you are n a r c i s s i s t i c o r t h a t
you are n a t i o n a l i s t i c , does i t ?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . I suppose i t means more e s s e n t i a l t h i n g s . It
means, w e l l , i t might be i n t h i n k i n g or l o v i n g o r f a l l i n g i n love o r being
c r o s s e d in l o v e , o r being now and then happy i n l o v e . Those t h i n g s are e s s e n -
t i a l to man.
MR. BUCKLEY: But t h e y ' r e u n i v e r s a l s , t o o .
MR. BORGES: They are u n i v e r s a l s , o f c o u r s e . Happily.
MR. BUCKLEY: So t h e r e f o r e y o u ' r e not committing the s i n o f n a t i o n a l i s m o r
n a r c i s s i s m , are y o u ?
MR. BORGES: No, I'm n o t . No, I'm n o t . No, I d o n ' t t h i n k I'm a n a r c i s s i s t o r
a n a t i o n a l i s t , f o r t h a t matter. N a t i o n a l i s m I t h i n k i s wrong i n a l l c o u n t r i e s ,
e x p e c i a l l y i n a new c o u n t r y l i k e mine. I mean, f o r example, l e t ' s say y o u ' r e
a Chinaman, or a Japanese or even a European, o r even i f y o u ' r e American you
might be a n a t i o n a l i s t . But here our h i s t o r y i s , l e t ' s s a y , some hundred and
odd y e a r s o l d , a c o u n t r y with no l o c a l c o l o r l i k e t h i s , w e l l , we have had
q u i t e a f i n e h i s t o r y i n the l a s t c e n t u r y , and now I t h i n k that we are b e t t e r ,
more o r l e s s i m p r o v i n g . I mean we went through a very sad p e r i o d , and now
t h i n g s are b e t t e r , at l e a s t we s h o u l d hope they are b e t t e r , because our hope
i s p a r t o f the betterment, no?
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s . W e l l , i t d i d n ' t undermine your a p p r e c i a t i o n o f K i p l i n g
his nationalism.
MR. BORGES: No, I t h i n k the B r i t i s h Empire made f o r good. I t h i n k they were
r i g h t , t h e r e . Maybe i t d i d no good to E n g l a n d
MR. BUCKLEY: So i t ' s bad n a t i o n a l i s m you o b j e c t t o , not j u s t n a t i o n a l i s m .
MR. BORGES: But i n the case o f K i p l i n g , I t h i n k I not o n l y t h i n k the
B r i t i s h Empire made f o r g o o d , but I t h i n k t h a t K i p l i n g needed that f a i t h i n
o r d e r to w r i t e h i s b o o k s , even as Walt Whitman needed democracy and Neruda
needed communism, o r Dante needed the Roman C a t h o l i c Church.
MR. BUCKLEY: I t was a c a t a l y s t o f h i s t a l e n t .
MR. BORGES: Y e s , i t was. But why n o t ? T h a t ' s a l l o w a b l e . Not o n l y a l l o w a b l e ,
but i t i s to be wished f o r .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , why d o n ' t we have any good l i t e r a t u r e coming out o f the
S o v i e t Union c e l e b r a t i n g communism? Why i s n ' t i t a c a t a l y s t o f a n y t h i n g
beautiful?
MR. BORGES: Because people are b u l l i e d i n t o i t .
MR. BUCKLEY: As d i s t i n c t from Neruda, who was n o t ?
MR. BORGES: No, he was not. As to the s i n c e r i t y o f Neruda, I know n o t h i n g
whatever. But s t i l l , i t made h i m - - I mean he wrote some bad sentimental p o e t r y .
His l o v e poetry was q u i t e bad. He thought so t o o . And then t h a t p o l i t i c a l
f a i t h came to him and saved him. I o n l y met Neruda once i n my l i f e . He thought
t h a t n o t h i n g would be done w i t h the S p a n i s h language. And then I s a i d to him,
"Something might be done w i t h E n g l i s h . " And he s a i d , " W e l l , something has been
d o n e . " And then I s a i d , " I n S p a n i s h n o t h i n g has been done as y e t . " And he
s a i d , " N o , I suppose n o t . " And I s a i d , " W e l l , w e ' l l have to do something f o r
t h a t God-forsaken l a n g u a g e . " W e l l , we d i d , o r at l e a s t he d i d .
MR. BUCKLEY: Now, how many books ago was t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n ?
MR. BORGES: That must have been way back in 1 9 2 0 - o d d , eh?
MR. BUCKLEY: He was a l r e a d y a Communist, was he?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t know, because we never spoke about p o l i t i c s . But he loved
the E n g l i s h language. I suppose he always d i d .
MR. BUCKLEY: You say i f you are b u l l i e d t h a t you s t i f l e the muse?
MR. BORGES: I t h i n k you do. You s t i f l e e v e r y t h i n g .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , but Dante was b u l l i e d .
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k he was b u l l i e d , no. I d o n ' t t h i n k he was b u l l i e d .
I t h i n k he b e l i e v e d i n i t .
MR. BUCKLEY: But he l i v e d i n an age i n which i t was dangerous not to b e l i e v e ,
d i d n ' t he?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , I suppose he was i n t e n s e l y r e l i g i o u s . For example, I c a n ' t
t h i n k o f m y s e l f being a Roman C a t h o l i c , or even a C h r i s t i a n . And y e t I t h o r -
o u g h l y enjoyed the Divine Comedy, without e n j o y i n g the framework, o f c o u r s e .
I d o n ' t l i k e the framework of the three i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h e l l , p u r g a t o r y , and
heaven, or p a r a d i s e . I c a n ' t b e l i e v e t h a t kind o f t h i n g . But s t i l l , i f I a c -
cept t h a t framework, then i t ' s a wonderful poem, perhaps the g r e a t e s t poem
ever w r i t t e n .
MR. BUCKLEY: Why i s i t t h a t there i s no i n t e n s e love o f communism that has
brought out an e q u i v a l e n t masterwork. Of c o u r s e , I suppose you c a n ' t have an
e q u i v a l e n t masterwork, but a masterwork. How do you account f o r the a r i d i t y
o f the e n t i r e S o v i e t experience in the l a s t 50 y e a r s , 60 y e a r s ?
MR. BORGES: I t h i n k a r i d i t y has been e x p l a i n e d away. I t h i n k i t ' s q u i t e com-
mon. For example, l e t ' s say--maybe I'm i n s u l t i n g people by s a y i n g t h i s - - y o u
take the United S t a t e s . You have at l e a s t h a l f a dozen men o f g e n i u s , from the
l i t e r a r y p o i n t o f view.
MR. BUCKLEY: You mean i n 200 y e a r s ?
MR. BORGES: You have, f o r example, you have Poe, you have M e l v i l l e , you have
Whitman, you have Hawthorne, you have Henry James. R i g h t ? You have F r o s t .
MR. BUCKLEY: T h a t ' s about i t .
MR. BORGES: What?
MR. BUCKLEY: Pound.
MR. BORGES: W e l l , Pound. W e l l , I d o n ' t want to rope him i n , but i f you do
i t ' s not my f u n e r a l as w e l l . But at the same t i m e , i f you t h i n k o f Canada and
A u s t r a l i a , they have produced n o t h i n g , produced p r a c t i c a l l y n o t h i n g . So maybe
the American R e v o l u t i o n made f o r good from a l i t e r a r y p o i n t o f view.
MR. BUCKLEY: In other w o r d s , you c o n s i d e r s i x people i n 200 y e a r s a p r o f u s i o n
o f g e n i u s , and a r i d i t y the r u l e o f thumb?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , I s h o u l d say s o . What I mean to say i s t h a t , w e l l , you may
l i k e o r d i s l i k e Poe; I d o n ' t t h i n k much o f him as a poet. But I t h i n k of him
as being a man o f g e n i u s . You may l i k e o r d i s l i k e Whitman; you can f i n d good
and bad l i n e s i n him. But he c a n ' t be thought away. You c a n ' t t h i n k o f c o n -
temporary l i t e r a t u r e a n d - -
MR. BUCKLEY: D i s m i s s Whitman.
MR. BORGES: Y e s , and d i s m i s s them. They c a n ' t be thought away. While o t h e r
w r i t e r s may be thought away. For example, South America has produced nobody
w o r t h w h i l e , I mean to the whole w o r l d . I suppose we have some f i n e w r i t e r s .
They are f i n e w r i t e r s , l e t ' s s a y , f o r A r g e n t i n e s , o r f o r C h i l e a n s , o r f o r
P e r u v i a n s , and so o n , but they mean n o t h i n g whatever to the w o r l d .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , you do. Neruda d i d . Neruda d i d .
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i n my case I t h i n k t h a t what y o u ' r e s a y i n g i s a form o f
p e s s i m i s m , to say t h a t I ' v e - - Or o f optimism.
MR. BUCKLEY: I g a t h e r you are t e l l i n g me t h a t there i s no reason to expect
t h a t i n R u s s i a there s h o u l d be a huge f i g u r e . Of course there i s , and t h a t ' s
S o l z h e n i t s y n , and h e ' s a d i s s e n t e r .
MR. BORGES: Do you expect a n y t h i n g from A u s t r a l i a , f o r example? I d o n ' t
suppose you do.
MR. BUCKLEY: P a t r i c k White.
MR. BORGES: W e l l , I d o n ' t know h i m , I'm s o r r y to s a y . I must plead my i g -
norance.
MR. BUCKLEY: He won a Nobel P r i z e , I b e l i e v e , d i d n ' t he?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , i f t h a t means a n y t h i n g .
MR. BUCKLEY: No. D o e s n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y mean a n y t h i n g , does i t ?
MR. BORGES: I suppose I s h o u l d n ' t say t h a t , not having won i t . But maybe
they needed an A u s t r a l i a n , or they needed a kangaroo, and so t h e y - -
MR. BUCKLEY: You have then no t h e s i s t h a t would e x p l a i n why over a p e r i o d
of 50 y e a r s in R u s s i a there was the b i g g e s t s p i r i t u a l c o n f l a g r a t i o n in l i t e r a r y
 h i s t o r y , and then n o t h i n g .
MR. BORGES: I must say t h a t i n t h a t case the c z a r s were b e t t e r , because they
gave us T o l s t o i and D o s t o e v s k i and Gogol. They made f o r good.
MR. BUCKLEY: C o r r e c t , but what was i t that a l l o f a sudden brought t h a t whole
movementdestroyed the momentum? Or i s g e n i u s too r a r e to make i t p o s s i b l e to
formulate any r u l e s about the i n c i d e n c e o f i t ?
MR. BORGES: I suppose i t i s r a r e . Then we have to f a l l back on W h i s t l e r . Art
happens or i t d o e s n ' t . Nothing can be expected.
MR. BUCKLEY: But there are p r o p i t i o u s and n o n p r o p i t i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r e n ' t
there?
MR. BORGES: P r o p i t i o u s c o u n t r i e s , a l s o . For example, E n g l a n d . I g r e a t l y
love England. I w o r s h i p E n g l a n d . But E n g l a n d , f o r example, i f you t h i n k o f i t
i n terms of music o r o f p a i n t i n g i t ' s not a very important c o u n t r y . But i n
terms o f l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s , i n terms o f p o e t r y , e s p e c i a l l y . In terms o f p r o s e ,
also. I d o n ' t suppose England produced any m u s i c i a n important o r o f matter to
the whole w o r l d . I d o n ' t suppose they have. Though I love T u r n e r , but s t i l l
t h a t may be a p r i v a t e b i a s o r a hobby o f mine o n l y . B l a k e , a l s o , but o f course
i n Blake what I admire i s r a t h e r the poet and the m y s t i c .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , are you making r e a l l y a g e n e t i c o b s e r v a t i o n o r a c u l t u r a l
o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t people with E n g l i s h blood w i l l g r a v i t a t e to l e t t e r s but not
so much to a r t or m u s i c ?
MR. BORGES: I suppose i t might be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o t h a t , but I w o u l d n ' t care
to make such a sweeping statement. In f a c t , I wonder i f I'm capable of a b -
stract thinking. I d o n ' t t h i n k I am. I o n l y t h i n k i n terms o f p a r t i c u l a r s ,
of i n d i v i d u a l s . That may be my E n g l i s h s i d e , a l s o , p u t t i n g t h i n g s i n terms o f
nominalism, of i n d i v i d u a l s .
MR. BUCKLEY: In France would you make any g e n e r a l i t i e s o f the E n g l i s h n a t u r e ?
MR. BORGES: France has produced many men o f g e n i u s . I t h i n k we s h o u l d a l l
feel very g r a t e f u l to France. I t h i n k I ' v e been u n g r a t e f u l to France because
I'm always l o o k i n g at E n g l a n d , and a l s o at the S c a n d i n a v i a n c o u n t r i e s . But
n o , France c a n ' t be thought away. I t c a n ' t be done. S p a i n has produced p e r -
haps the one man o f g e n i u s , C e r v a n t e s , and the o t h e r s , I s u p p o s e , may be s a f e l y
f o r g o t t e n . At l e a s t , I s a f e l y o r u n s a f e l y f o r g e t them. I have S p a n i s h ,
P o r t u g e s e , and E n g l i s h b l o o d , and maybe everybody has a l i t t l e Jewish b l o o d ,
a l s o , no?
MR. BUCKLEY: Have the Portugese produced a w r i t e r o f the f i r s t r a n k , by y o u r
r a t h e r severe s t a n d a r d s ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , I t h i n k they have produced two. Eca de Q u e i r o s , a 19th
c e n t u r y n o v e l i s t , and Camoes, who wrote one, the g r e a t e p i c poem, the huaiadas,
where you have f e e l i n g f o r the s e a . You never get t h a t i n S p a n i s h p o e t r y .
They have no f e e l i n g whatever f o r the s e a .
MR. BUCKLEY: Why?
MR. BORGES: The C a s t i l i a n s were an i n l a n d people. That may e x p l a i n the
f a i l u r e of the Armada, a l s o .
MR. BUCKLEY: I s i t i n y o u r experience p o s s i b l e to s t i m u l a t e a love o f l i t e r a -
t u r e , o r i s i t something that a l s o j u s t happens o r d o e s n ' t happen? Is i t pos-
s i b l e to take 20 people and make them love l i t e r a t u r e more?
MR. BORGES: Of c o u r s e , I have been a p r o f e s s o r o f E n g l i s h and American l i t e r a -
t u r e d u r i n g some 20 y e a r s , at the U n i v e r s i t y o f Buenos A i r e s .
MR. BUCKLEY: T h a t ' s why I asked y o u .
MR. BORGES: And I have t r i e d to teach my s t u d e n t s not l i t e r a t u r e t h a t c a n ' t
be t a u g h t b u t the love o f l i t e r a t u r e . And I have sometimes succeeded, and
f a i l e d many times o v e r , o f c o u r s e . I f the course has to be done i n f o u r months,
I can do very l i t t l e . But s t i l l I know there are many young men i n Buenos
A i r e s m a y b e t h e y ' r e not so young nowyoung men and young women, who have
t h e i r memories f u l l o f E n g l i s h v e r s e . And I have been s t u d y i n g Old E n g l i s h
and Old Norse f o r the l a s t 20 y e a r s . And I have a l s o t a u g h t many people the
l o v e o f Old E n g l i s h .
MR. BUCKLEY: And so t h e r e i s a pedagogical a r t . I t i s n ' t simply a matter o f
MR. BORGES: But I t h i n k l i t e r a t u r e i s being taught i n the wrong way a l l the
time. I t ' s being taught i n terms o f h i s t o r y and o f s o c i o l o g y . And I w o u l d n ' t
do t h a t . I have seen many t e a c h e r s who are always f a l l i n g back on d a t e s , on
place names.
MR. BUCKLEY: You d o n ' t do t h a t ?
MR. BORGES: I do my b e s t to a v o i d i t .
MR. BUCKLEY: On the grounds t h a t i t i s d i s t r a c t i n g ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , o f c o u r s e . Y e s , I f e e l t h a t i t ' s i r r e l e v a n t . For example,
i f I g i v e you a b e a u t i f u l l i n e o f v e r s e , t h a t verse s h o u l d be as b e a u t i f u l
today as i t was c e n t u r i e s a g o . Or had i t been w r i t t e n t o d a y , i t s h o u l d be
beautiful also.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , d o e s n ' t the c o n t e x t i n which you read i t a t t a c h a c e r t a i n
meaning to i t ?
MR. BORGES: Y e s , but I suppose i f a l i n e i s b e a u t i f u l the context can be
s a f e l y f o r g o t t e n , no? I f I s a y , f o r example, t h a t " t h e moon i s the m i r r o r o f
t i m e , " t h a t ' s a f i n e metaphor, d o n ' t you t h i n k ?
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s .
MR. BORGES: A m i r r o r as being something r o u n d ; i t can be e a s i l y b r o k e n , and
y e t somehow the moon i s as o l d as t i m e , o r h a l f as o l d as time. Now, were I
to add t h a t that comes from P e r s i a n p o e t r y , i t w o u l d n ' t r e a l l y add to the
beauty. Perhaps i t might add i n a c e r t a i n way. But s t i l l , had that metaphor
been invented t h i s morning i t would be a f i n e metaphor, no? The moon, the
m i r r o r o f time. I t happens t o be a P e r s i a n metaphor.
MR. BUCKLEY: : W e l l , but c e r t a i n l y c e r t a i n t h i n g s are accepted as b e a u t i f u l i n
p a r t depending on the p r e v a i l i n g s t y l e . The kind o f e n t h u s i a s m , f o r i n s t a n c e ,
t h a t was shown f o r R e s t o r a t i o n comedy. Some o f t h a t s t u f f i s n ' t very funny
now. Some o f the romantic e x c e s s e s o f the 19th century a r e n ' t
MR. BORGES: But I suppose a l l t h a t ' s r a t h e r a r t i f i c i a l , no? T h a t ' s one o f
the reasons why I ' m s o fond o f Old E n g l i s h p o e t r y , t h a t nobody knows a n y t h i n g
whatever about the poets b e s i d e s the century they wrote i n , and y e t I f i n d
something very s t i r r i n g about Old E n g l i s h p o e t r y .
MR. BUCKLEY: I t has t o stand on i t s own two f e e t , you mean?
MR. BORGES: I t has t o . Or maybe because I l i k e the sounds o f i t . "Maeg io
be me sylfum sothgied wreoan, I Sithas seogan"now, those sounds have a r i n g
to them.
MR. BUCKLEY: What does t h a t s a y ? What i s t h a t i n d o l l a r s ?
MR. BORGES: That would s a y w a i t a b i t . I n d o l l a r s t h a t would b e : " I can
u t t e r a t r u e song about m y s e l f . I can t e l l o f my t r a v e l s . " That sounds l i k e
Walt Whitman, no? That was w r i t t e n i n the 9 t h century i n Northumberland.
"Maeg io be me sylfum sothgeid wreoan, I Sithas seogan"and Ezra Pound t r a n s -
l a t e d i t as t h i s I t h i n k i t ' s a r a t h e r uncouth t r a n s l a t i o n " M a y I f o r my own
sake s o n g ' s t r u t h r e c k o n , j o u r n e y ' s j a r g o n . " W e l l , t h a t ' s too much o f a j a r -
gon to me, no? Of c o u r s e , h e ' s t r a n s l a t i n g the sounds. "Maeg io be me sylfum
sothgied wreoan, I Sithas seogan"--"May I f o r my sake s o n g ' s t r u t h r e c k o n , "
"sothgied wreoan"--he's t r a n s l a t i n g the sounds more than the sense. And then
"Sithas seogan"--"tell o f my t r a v e l s , " he t r a n s l a t e s " j o u r n e y ' s j a r g o n , " which
i s r a t h e r uncouth, at l e a s t t o me.
MR. BUCKLEY: Whose t r a n s l a t i o n d i d you s a y ?
MR. BORGES: I t ' s Ezra P o u n d ' s t r a n s l a t i o n .
MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, I s e e .
MR. BORGES: I t ' s Ezra P o u n d ' s t r a n s l a t i o n from the A n g l o - S a x o n , y e s .
MR. BUCKELY: How would you have t r a n s l a t e d t h a t word?
MR. BORGES: I would t r a n s l a t e i t l i t e r a l l y . " I can u t t e r , I can say a t r u e
song about m y s e l f . I can t e l l my t r a v e l s . " I t h i n k t h a t s h o u l d be enough,
no? I t was a p l a i n s t a t e m e n t , a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d statement.
MR. BUCKLEY: But i n any case t h i s would be an example o f something t h a t c a n ' t
be i n f l u e n c e d by a change i n f a s h i o n ?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k s o .
MR. BUCKLEY: I t ' s b e a u t i f u l then and now.
MR. BORGES: I t h i n k i f t h i n g s are b e a u t i f u l , w e l l , Keats s a i d i t . He s a i d
i t i n too f l o w e r y a way, p e r h a p s , but I t h i n k i t was t r u e . "A t h i n g o f beauty
is a joy forever." I suppose he meant t h a t , no? I f he meant a n y t h i n g .
MR. BUCKLEY: Now, when you s a y " t o o f l o w e r y a w a y , " you were i n t e n d i n g what
kind of c r i t i c i s m ?
MR. BORGES: W e l l , "A t h i n g o f beauty i s a j o y f o r e v e r . " There i s something
f l o w e r y about i t , d o n ' t you t h i n k s o ?
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , I d o , but I ' m not s u r e t h a t the p e r s p e c t i v e by which we
are permitted t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e to him.
MR. BORGES: But i f you have to take p e r s p e c t i v e s i n t o a c c o u n t , t h i n g s a r e n ' t
too g o o d , no? For example, I was reading B u r t o n ' s t r a n s l a t i o n o f the Arabian
Nights. I t h i n k the Arabian Nights i s a very f i n e work. I t would be f i n e i f
i t were w r i t t e n t h i s morning. I t ' s a very f i n e work.
MR. BUCKLEY: And would read well anytime? .
MR. BORGES: I t h i n k i t would. I t h i n k t h a t ' s the t e s t , that a book s h o u l d '
read well at anytime. Of c o u r s e , when w r i t e r s go i n f o r w o r d - c r a f t , word-
m u s i c , then o f c o u r s e i t ' s very d i f f i c u l t to t r a n s l a t e them. I n the case o f
S h a k e s p e a r e , f o r example, I suppose t h a t h a l f the beauty l i e s i n the l a n g u a g e ,
and t h e r e f o r e i t c a n ' t be t r a n s l a t e d .
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , i s there a c o r r e l a t i o n between the s e l f - e s t e e m o f a w r i t e r
and h i s permanence, o r i s there no r u l e on the s u b j e c t ? Do some modest w r i t e r s
l i v e and some v a i n w r i t e r s d i e ?
MR. BORGES: I d o n ' t t h i n k I c o u l d say a n y t h i n g v a l u a b l e on t h a t s u b j e c t .
MR. BUCKLEY: Did Dante know he had w r i t t e n a m a s t e r p i e c e ?
MR. BORGES: He was f u l l y aware o f i t . You can see t h a t he knew very well what
he was d o i n g , u n l i k e S h a k e s p e a r e , who was u n c o n s c i o u s o f what he was d o i n g .
Or l e t ' s take a l e s s e r example. Did Mark Twain know how good a book he was
w r i t i n g when he wrote Huok Finn! I d o n ' t t h i n k s o . You see t h a t the end o f
the book f a l l s t o p i e c e s . Tom Sawyer i s allowed t o s p o i l the book. And y e t
he wrote the book, the one book, I s h o u l d s a y - - W e l l , the other books he wrote
were q u i t e good, I mean Roughing It, Life on the Mississippi, First Days in
California. Those were f i n e b o o k s , but those a r e n ' t as good. Of c o u r s e , he
had to be making jokes a l l the t i m e , and t h a t , I s u p p o s e , hampered him.
MR. BUCKLEY: W e l l , Cervantes thought o f h i m s e l f as a poet p r i m a r i l y , d i d n ' t
he?
MR. BORGES: As a poet he was nowhere.
MR. BUCKLEY: So t h a t was s i m p l y a mistake i n judgment?
MR. BORGES: But what I mean t o s a y i s he was a poet when he was w r i t i n g p r o s e ,
not when he was attempting v e r s e .
MR. BUCKLEY: Y e s , y e s .
MR. BORGES: I t i s s a i d t h a t the one good verse h e ' s w r i t t e n i n S p a n i s h was
"La graoia que no supo darme el oielo"--\ mean being a p o e t , n o t ? T h a t ' s the
one l i n e o f good verse he ever wrote.
MR. BUCKLEY: Do y o u want t o t r a n s l a t e t h a t ?
MR. BORGES "The g i f t that heaven d i d not g i v e me."
MR. BUCKLEY: Could not g i v e me.
MR. BORGES Y e s , c o u l d not--que no quisono, would n o t , d i d not care t o .
MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much,Mr. B o r g e s . I ' v e enjoyed o u r -
MR. BORGES No, I have to thank you f o r your e x t r a o r d i n a r y p a t i e n c e .
MR. BUCKLEY: You can have my patience anytime you want.
MR. BORGES Thank y o u , s i r .
MR. BUCKLEY: And thank you very m u c h , l a d i e s and gentlemen.
MR. BORGES Thank y o u , s i r .
T r a n s c r i p t s are a v a i l a b l e from the Southern Educational Communica-
t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the 250 Firing Line programs produced d u r i n g
the l a s t f i v e y e a r s . I f you would l i k e to order back i s s u e s o f
the Firing Line t r a n s c r i p t s , p l e a s e f i l l out the a t t a c h e d o r d e r
form and mail i t w i t h y o u r check o r money order ( p l e a s e , no cash)
to:
F i r i n g Line
P.O. Box 5966
Columbia, South C a r o l i n a 29250
and i n d i c a t e the t r a n s c r i p t number(s) from the l i s t on the f o l -
lowing pages. Each t r a n s c r i p t i s $ 1 . 2 5 . S p e c i a l d i s c o u n t f o r an
order o f 10 o r more t r a n s c r i p t s : $ 1 . 0 0 each.

Name

Address

Ci t v State Zip

Transcript number(s):

# # # 1

1 1 I 1

# # f #

_ c h e c k enclosed MAIL TO: F i r i n g Line

P.O. Box 5966
money order e n c l o s e d Columbia, S . C . 29250

P l e a s e a l l o w three weeks d e l i v e r y time.

 I.Dump N i x o n ; Paul McCloskey, A l l a r d Lowenstein
2.Free M e d i c i n e ; E l l i o t R i c h a r d s o n
3 . S e p a r a t i o n o f Church and S t a t e ; Madalyn Murray 0 '
4 . S t r i k e s i n Defiance o f the Law; V i c t o r Gotbaum,
Malcolm W i l s o n
5.The Black Caucus; Ronald Dellums
6.The L a w y e r ' s R o l e ; W i l l i a m K u n s t l e r
7.War C r i m e s , P a r t I ; E r n e s t van den Haag, Seymour
Hersh
8.Revenue S h a r i n g ; W i l b u r M i l l s
9.War C r i m e s , P a r t I I ; Three M a r i n e s
1 0 . I s I t P o s s i b l e to Be a Good G o v e r n o r ? ; Ronald Reagan
l l . I s S t . A u g u s t i n e R e l e v a n t ? ; F u l t o n J . Sheen, Sherwood
W i r t , Gerhart Niemeyer
1 2 . 1 s America a T e r r i b l e Letdown?; Mary McCarthy
13.The Problems o f a C o n s e r v a t i v e L e g i s l a t o r ; James
Buckley
14.What Has Happened to the American S p i r i t ? ; James
Dickey
1 5 . I n Defense o f P o l i c y ; Walt W. Rostow
16.Law and Order i n E n g l a n d ; S i r Peter Rawlinson
1 7 . P r e s i d e n t i a l H o p e f u l ; S e n a t o r Fred H a r r i s
1 8 . P o l i t i c s o f W i l l i a m P r o x m i r e ; Senator Wm. Proxmire
1 9 . I s America H o s p i t a b l e to the N e g r o ? ; J e s s e Jackson
20.Pornography E n g l i s h S t y l e ; Renee S h o r t , John Selwyn
Gummer
21.The Case A g a i n s t Freedom; B.F. S k i n n e r , Donald
MacKay
2 2 . M a r i j u a n a R e c o n s i d e r e d ; L e s t e r G r i n s p o o n , Lawrence
McKinney
23The Meaning o f the China V o t e ; George B u s h , I-Cheng
Loh
n 24.Why A r e n ' t Good B u i l d i n g s Being B u i l t ? ; Ada L o u i s e
~f H u x t a b l e , James R o s s a n t
o 25.The Place o f the T r e a t y i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s ;
John Kerry
- 26.The News T w i s t e r s ; E d i t h E f r o n , Andrew Rooney
2. 27.Nixon i n the White HouseThe F r u s t r a t i o n o f Power;
H Rowland E v a n s , Robert Novak
c
28.The American C o n s e r v a t i v e and Mr. N i x o n ; C D . W i l l i a m s ,
Moderator; J . Anthony L u k a s , Nick Thimmesch, W. Carey
ir McWilliams
29.The Edgar Smith S t o r y , P a r t I ; Edgar Smith
30.The Edgar Smith S t o r y , P a r t I I ; Edgar S m i t h , Ronald
S u l l i v a n , G e o f f r e y Norman, Hans K n i g h t , John C a r l e y
31.The A s s a u l t on P r i v a c y ; P r o f . A r t h u r R. M i l l e r
32.Who Owns A m e r i c a ? ; Walter H i c k e l
33.The 1 8 - to 2 1 - Y e a r - 0 1 d V o t e ; Marsha M a r t i n , L a r r y
Seidman, Steven C o r t r i g h t , Yvonne Westbrook, Steve
Morgan, L a r r y Diamond, Dave Gerber, Meta Mendel
3 4 . V i e t n a m i z a t i o n ; E l l s w o r t h Bunker
3 5 . I s r a e l : War o r P e a c e ? ; Shimon Peres
3 6 . V i e t n a m L o o k i n g Back; Peter O s n o s , S t a n C l o u d , George
McArthur
3 7 . I n s i d e I s r a e l ; Amnon R u b i n s t e i n , M r s . Leah Ben D o r ,
Mahmoud A b a s s i
38.The New Hampshire P r i m a r y ; John A s h b r o o k , Paul McCloskey
39.The Meaning o f C h i n a ; Dr. Ross T e r r i l l
4 0 . G e n o c i d e ; Robert Conquest
41.The I r i s h Problem; Bernadette D e v l i n
4 2 . F a s c i s m P a s t and P r e s e n t ; S i r Oswald Mosley
43.An E n g l i s h I n q u i r y I n t o American C o n s e r v a t i s m ; Three
Cambridge Graduates: E v a n s , R i d d e l ! , Middleweek
44.Government S e c r e c y ; Jack Anderson
45.The Greek Dilemma; Andreas Papandreou
4 6 . E l e c t i o n Reform; Robert Finch
47.The I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the China T r i p ; Dr. R i c h a r d Walker,
P r o f David Mozingo
4 8 . A l c o h o l i s m ; Father P e t e r S w e i s g o o d , Dr. Joseph H i r s h
49.A P o p u l a r M a n i f e s t o ; J e f f G r e e n f i e l d , Jack Newfield
50.The Arab S i d e ; Abdul Hamid S h a r a f
51.Does S u b v e r s i o n Work?; Laurence B e i l e n s o n , A l a n Barth
5 2 . R i c h a r d Nixon and Young C o n s e r v a t i v e s ; J . B r i a n S m i t h ,
Mark H a r r o f f , Dana Rohrabacher, Harvey H. H a k a r i , J r .
5 3 . N o - F a u l t I n s u r a n c e ; M a r v i n E. L e w i s , Harry A. Lansman
5 4 . M u s i c and Modernism; Fernando V a l e n t i
55.Three McGovern D e l e g a t e s T h e G a l b r a i t h F a m i l y ; John
Kenneth G a l b r a i t h , Peter G a l b r a i t h , James G a l b r a i t h
 Should the SALT Pacts Be A p p r o v e d ? ; S e n a t o r Henry 84 The I r i s h Problem, 1 9 7 3 ; Lord Terence O ' N e i l l
J a c k s o n , S e n a t o r Frank Church 85 The Welfare S t a t e ? ; S h i r l e y W i l l i a m s , M.P.
57. A f t e r n o o n on the Potomac?; Roy J e n k i n s 86 Corporal Punishment; C.C. Kuper, P e t e r Newell
58. The Pentagon P a p e r s ; Dr. Daniel E l l s b e r g 87 Women's L i b ; Germaine Greer
59, On the Concorde; Anthony Wedgwood Benn 88 The Federal Government and E d u c a t i o n ; Caspar Weinberger
60. The McGovern Phenomenon; Frank Mankiewicz 89 The Equal R i g h t s Amendment; P h y l l i s S c h l a f l y , Ann S c o t t
6 1 . James R. H o f f a ; James R. Hoffa 90 P r o p o s a l s f o r W e l f a r e ; Governor Jimmy C a r t e r
62. The Jewish Vote; Dr. W i l l i a m A. Wexler, Nathan 91 What to Do About the P o s t O f f i c e ; Sen. E r n e s t F. H o l l i n g s
G l a z e r , Nathan Perl mutter 92 The I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Watergate; James P o w e l l , Reg Murphy,
63. Sex E d u c a t i o n ; Dr. Joel F o r t , Dr. Mary C a l d e r o n e , Robert P. C l a r k
P r o f . E r n e s t van den Haag 9 3 . L i m i t a t i o n s o f P r e s i d e n t i a l Power; Sen. Hubert Humphrey
64. Hate America; Dotson Rader, A r n o l d Beichman 94. Meat P r i c e s and A g r i c u l t u r a l P o l i c y ; E a r l Butz
6.5. The U.S. E l e c t i o n Viewed from Abroad; Andre 9 5 . C o n s e r v a t i v e s View Watergate; E r n e s t van den Haag,
F o n t a i n e , Raymond A r o n , Michel Gordey W i l l i a m Rusher
66. A b o r t i o n L a w s - - P r o and Con; John T. Noonan,Roy Lucas 96. How Much P r o t e c t i o n f o r the P r e s s ; C h a r l e s Rembar, C.
67. Harold M a c m i l l a n ; Harold Macmi11 an Dicerman W i l l i a m s
68. C h r i s t i a n i t y and C a p i t a l i s m ; L o r d Soper o f Kingsway 97. Legal Aspects o f A b o r t i o n ; John T. Noonan, H a r r i e t Pi 1 pel
69. The Free Market and America; V a l e r y G i s c a r d 9 8 ..Drugs and Freedom; Dr. Thomas S. S z a s z
d ' E s t a i n g , Evan G a l b r a i t h 9 9 .. I s There an E c o l o g i c a l C r i s i s ? ; B a r r y Commoner
70. P o l i t i c a l F i n a n c i n g ; Robert S t r a u s s 100..Was I t Worth I t ? ; Rear Admiral A l a n Shepard
7 1 . The Old and the New F o r e i g n P o l i c y ; Walt W. Rostow, 1 0 1 ..What Now f o r the G h e t t o ? ; Thomas B r a d l e y
Eugene D. Rostow 102 .World F e d e r a l i s m Today; Norman C o u s i n s
72 L o o k i n g Back on the C i v i l R i g h t s Laws; Hodding 103 . R u s s i a n Jewry and American F o r e i g n P o l i c y ; Dmitri and
C a r t e r I I I , C l a r k e Reed Natasha Simes
73, The Southern I m a g i n a t i o n ; Eudora Weity,Walker Percy 104 . Q u e s t i o n s About America; Anthony Howard, L o u i s Heren, Dee
74, The Young; Anthony B u r g e s s Wells
75, A C o n s e r v a t i v e Look a t M a r i j u a n a ; Thomas E. B r y a n t , 105 .Democracy and P o l i t i c a l S c a n d a l ; Michael Foot
John Greenway 106 .Are Unions the Enemy o f the Working C l a s s ? ; Hugh Scanlon
76, The C a t h o l i c C r i s i s ; Garry W i l l s 107 .Has America Had I t ? ; Malcolm Muggeridge
77 The CIA and F d r e i g n P o l i c y ; Howard Hunt 108 .The Energy C r i s i s and Energy P o l i c y ; M.A. Adelman, Jock
78, The Future o f C o n s e r v a t i v e V a l u e s ; Daniel P a t r i c k Ritchie
Moynihan 109 .Amnesty; Henry S c h w a r z s c h i I d
79, What Are the C h a l l e n g e s f o r C o n s e r v a t i v e s i n 1 9 7 3 ? ; 110 .The S e c u r i t y o f Europe; S i r A l e c Douglas-Home
Gabe Pressman, R i c h a r d Reeves, Mary Perot N i c h o l s 111 .Nixon P r e s i d e n c y ; Samuel Lubell
How Does I t Go With the Black Movement?;Huey P. 112 .Mechanism of Moral Development; B.F. S k i n n e r , Leon
Newton Festinger
81 The White House and the M e d i a ; Clay T. Whitehead 113 H e r e d i t y , I.Q. and S o c i a l I s s u e s ; Dr. Thomas Bever, D r .
82 Texas P o l i t i c s ; Ronnie Dugger, Frances F a r e n t h o l d , Richard Herrnstein
Beryl M i l burn 114 .Can We Have an Independent P r o s e c u t o r ? ; W i l l i a m
The U . S . I . A . ; Frank Shakespeare Ruckelshaus
115.The M i d d l e E a s t E x p l o s i o n and American D e t e n t e ; Hans
J . Morgenthau
1 1 6 . L i m i t s o f B e h a v i o r a l C o n t r o l ; David Premack, Dr.
Nathan A z r i n
1 1 7 . P s y c h o s u r g e r y and B r a i n C o n t r o l ; D r . E l l i o t
V a l e n s t e i n , Dr. D i e t r i c h Blumer
118.Have We Learned A n y t h i n g from W a t e r g a t e ? ; A l l a r d
Lowenstein
119.The J e s u s Movement; Malachi M a r t i n
120.The Future o f the GOP; E l l i o t R i c h a r d s o n
121.The Views o f a N i x o n i t e ; P a t r i c k Buchanan
122.Penal Reform; J e s s i c a M i t f o r d
123.The R e v i s i o n i s t H i s t o r i a n s ; Dean Rusk
124.Mr. Buckley Defends H i s Four Reforms; Joe R u s s i n ,
Kate Coleman, Michael Brown
125.Government and P u b l i c C o n f i d e n c e ; Sen. Edmund Muskie
126.The B r i t i s h C r i s i s ; Anthony Lejuene, Bernard L e v i n
127.Enoch Powell and the B r i t i s h C r i s i s ; Enoch Powell
128.Tax Reform; S t a n l e y S u r r e y
1 2 9 . P o l i t i c s and B l a c k P r o g r e s s ; J u l i a n Bond, John Lewis
1 3 0 . U l s t e r 1 9 7 4 ; John Hume
1 3 1 . C a t h o l i c i s m and S o c i a l i s m i n I r e l a n d ; Noel Browne
132.The Q u e s t i o n o f South A f r i c a ; John V o r s t e r
133.The Q u e s t i o n o f R h o d e s i a ; I a n Smith
134.The Republican P a r t y and Mr. N i x o n ; George Bush
135.The B l a c k m a i l i n g o f the P r e s i d e n t ; E. Howard Hunt
136.Where Do We Go From Here i n the M i d d l e E a s t ? ; D r .
Fayez A. Sayegh
1 3 7 . S h o u l d the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s a r m ? ; Les A s p i n
138.How S t r o n g S h o u l d the P r e s i d e n c y B e ? ; Eugene
McCarthy
1 3 9 . J u s t i c e and t h e 5 t h Amendment; Ed. Bennett W i l l i a m s
140.Amnesty; Ramsey C l a r k
141.Government and the A r t s ; Ronald Berman
142.The Future o f the GOP; V . P . Gerald Ford
143.The Kidnapper, the V i c t i m , the S o c i e t y ; Reg Murphy
144.The L i m i t s o f J o u r n a l i s t i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n ; Carl
B e r n s t e i n , Bob Woodward
1 4 5 . S h o c k ! e y ' s T h e s i s ; Dr. W i l l i a m S h o c k l e y
146.What Do We Want from SALT 1 1 ? ; Elmo Zumwalt, Paul N i t z e
1 4 7 . P u b l i c M e d i c i n e ? ; Max F i n e , Dr. R u s s e l l Roth
1 4 8 . L e a d e r s h i p i n America-; Joe M c G i n n i s , Murray Kempton
1 4 9 . L o o k i n g Back on George J a c k s o n ; Gregory A r m s t r o n g ,
Albert Harris, Jr.
150.The P o l i t i c a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f A r t i s t s ; Hugh Kenner
151.Buckley as UN D e l e g a t e ; P a u l i n e F r e d e r i c k , John S c a l i
152.The Nixon Experience and American C o n s e r v a t i s m ; James
Buckley
!53.The P r e s i d e n t ' s Pardon; Rep. Thorn F. R a i l s b a c k , Rep.
Jerome R. Waldie
1 5 4 . C h i l e and the C I A ; Edward M. Korry
1 5 5 . E n g l a n d at the B r i n k ; Edward Heath
156.The Economy; Dr. P i e r r e R i n f r e t
157.Recognize Cuba?; Jorge Mas, Tad S z u l c
158.Can You S t r i k e A g a i n s t the S t a t e ? ; J e r r y Wurf
1 5 9 . E l e c t i o n R h e t o r i c 1974; Ben J . Wattenberg, Lanny D a v i s
1 6 0 . R u s s i a and the Food C r i s i s ; Morton I . S o s l a n d
161.The P o s t - E l e c t i o n S o u t h ; Rep. John J e n r e t t e , R e p . E l l i o t t
L e v i t a s , Rep. T r e n t L o t t
162.Democratic C u l t u r e ; L e s l i e F i e d l e r
163.Jews and American P o l i t i c s ; Stephen I s a a c s , John Murray
Cuddihy
164.The Energy C r i s i s and the Economy; W i l l i a m Simon
165.The P r o s p e c t s f o r Democratic M o d e r a t i o n ; M o r r i s Udall
166.Government by C o n s e n s u s ; Rep. John Rhodes
167.Food and the C h r i s t i a n C o n s c i e n c e ; Father Theodore
Hesburgh
168.The Problem o f the PL0; Dr. M.T. Mehdi
169.Where Do We Go Now f o r E q u a l i t y ? ; Vernon J o r d a n , J r .
1 7 0 . 0 i 1 : T h e I s s u e o f American I n t e r v e n t i o n ; R o b e r t Tucker
171.How To Speak the L o r d ' s Language; Rev. Leo M a l a m ' a ,
P r o f . Harold L. Weatherby
172.Legal R i g h t s o f T e e n - a g e r s ; H a r r i e t Pi 1 p e l , C. Dickerman
Wi11i ams
173.Three B r i t i s h M . P . s A g a i n s t W i l l i a m F. B u c k l e y , J r . ;
Neil K i n n o c k , Helene Middleweek Hayman, Norman Lamont
174.The Communist P a r t y and B r i t i s h P o l i c y ; Jimmy Reid
3"
<a
r~
2.
SB
3
Q.
CO
175.The I n t e l l e c t u a l ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n an Age o f 200.Unemployment, I n f l a t i o n and the Economy; Walter H e l l e r
af
T o t a l i t a r i a n i s m ; Stephen Spender 201.Why We L o s t the War i n South Vietnam; Nguyen Cao Ky
o 1 7 6 . W i l l i a m F. B u c k l e y , J r . , Malcolm Muggeridge and the 202.The P r a c t i c a l L i m i t s o f L i b e r a l i s m ; Edmund G. Brown, J r .
1
World; Malcolm Muggeridge 2 0 3 . 1 s Our M i l i t a r y Defense Adequate?; James S c h l e s i n g e r
Q.
C_ 1 7 7 . I n t e r g r i t y and J o u r n a l i s m ; Tom Wicker, W i l l i a m 204.FCC and P u b l i c P o l i c y ; R i c h a r d Wiley
C Safire 205.Running the White House; Donald Rumsfeld
3
178.Do We Have C o n t i n u i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n I n d o - 206.The I m p l i c a t i o n o f the Manson Phenomenon;Vincent B u g l i o s i
<
c h i n a ? ; Anthony Lewis 207.The R i g h t to Die (or L i v e ) ; M i l t o n H e i f e n t z , MD, Ralph

w
179.Feminism; C l a r e Boothe Luce
180.The F i r s t Republican Governor o f South C a r o l i n a i n
>< 100 Y e a r s ; James B. Edwards
181.Who K i l l e d Bobby K e n n e d y ? ; A l l a r d Lowenstein
1 8 2 . A b o r t i o n ; Norman S t . J o h n - S t e v a s , Margot H e n t o f f ,
F r . Joseph O'Rourke
183.American P r e s t i g e i n E u r o p e ? ; Peter J a y , Bernard
L e v i n , Peter J e n k i n s
184.The Economic q u a n d a r y ? ; Andrew K n i g h t
185.Was I s r a e l R e s p o n s i b l e f o r K i s s i n g e r ' s F a i l u r e ? ;
Y i t z h a k Rabin
186.Hawk and Dove W i t h i n I s r a e l ; Shalom R o s e n f e l d ,
Shlomo A v i n e r i , Meyer Weisgal
187.U.S.-Greek R e l a t i o n s ; Helen V l a c h o l s , P a n a y i o t i s
L a m b r i a s , George Alexander Manqakis
188.1s Detente W o r k i n g ? ; Senator Henry Jackson
1 8 9 . O i l and the Arab Cause; Dr. Farok Akhdar
190.The Ozone C o n t r o v e r s y ; Michael B. M c E l r o y , R i c h a r d
S . S c o r e r , R u s s e l l W. Peterson
191.Tom Wolfe and the P a i n t e d Word; Tom Wolfe
192.The Breach o f F a i t h ; Theodore White
193.Should the Government Have S e c r e t s ? ; Morton H.
Halperin
1 9 4 . D i d Jack Anderson Con the P r e s i d e n t ? ; Jack Anderson
195.The T h i r d P a r t y ; W i l l i a m R u s h e r , Stanton Evans
196.The Concerns o f Young C o n s e r v a t i v e s , YAF D i r e c t o r s
197.Where Are We Headed With Disarmament?; Fred I k l e
198.The P o l i t i c s o f Henry K i s s i n g e r ; Henry K i s s i n g e r
199.The B r i t i s h Mess with the ' F i r s t L a d y ' o f B r i t i s h
P o l i t i c s ; Margaret Thatcher
P o r z i o , W i l l i a m R. G r a f e , MD
208.Crime and C r i m i n a l s ; James Q. W i l s o n , E r n e s t van den Haag
209.The Z i o n i s t V o t e ; Paul R i e b e n f e l d , A l f r e d L i l i e n t h a l
210.What Can the I n t e l l e c t u a l s Do f o r the C i t i e s ? ; Jimmy
Breslin
211.The P r e s i d e n t i a l A s s a s s i n a t i o n ; David W. B e l i n
2 1 2 . I n t e l l i g e n c e and S e c u r i t y ; Rep. O t i s Pike
2 1 3 . I s the Stock Market H o n e s t ? ; R i c h a r d Ney, C h r i s Welles
2 1 4 . S h o u l d We Choose our P r e s i d e n t s D i f f e r e n t l y ? ; R i c h a r d
Reeves
215.The R u s s i a n s ; Hedrick S m i t h , Robert K a i s e r
216.Are the Major P a r t i e s S t a l e m a t e d ? ; John C o n n a l l y
217.The Concorde C o n s p i r a c y ; John F. H e l l e g e r s , John C o s t e l l o
218.What Did the M i l i t a r y Learn from V i e t n a m ? ; Gen. W i l l i a m
Westmoreland
219.The Uses o f the United N a t i o n s ; Daniel P a t r i c k Moynihan
220.The E d u c a t o r ' s Dilemma; W i l s o n R i l e s
221.The Future o f S p a i n ; Manuel Fraga I r i b a r n e
2 2 2 . F o r e i g n P o l i c y and the Role o f S p a i n ; Jose A r e i l z a
2 2 3 . B u c k l e y on an E n g l i s h F i r i n g L i n e ; Andrew K n i g h t , Anthony
Howard, R i c h a r d Clements
224.What i s T h e i r CIA Up T o ? ; M i l e s Copeland, M a r t i n Walker
225.The V i s i o n o f S o l z h e n i t s y n ; S o l z h e n i t s y n , Malcolm
M u g g e r i d g e , Bernard L e v i n
226.American Ambassador, Anne Armstrong; Anne Armstrong
2 2 7 . S h o u l d B r i t a i n Get R i d o f I t s R o y a l t y ? ; W i l l i e Hamilton
228.Growing (Up) at 3 7 ; J e r r y R u b i n , Dotson Rader
229.The I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Hearst T r i a l ; Dr. Joel F o r t , P r o f .
Alan Dershowitz
230.Unemployment; P r o f . M a r t i n F e l d s t e i n
2 3 1 . 1 s There Any S o v i e t J u s t i c e ? ; T e l f o r d T a y l o r
232.The New S p i r o T. Agnew; S p i r o Agnew
2 3 3 . U . S . Defense and the P o l i t i c a l Campaign; Elmo Zumwalt
234.The I n t i m a t e Lyndon J o h n s o n ; D o r i s Kearns
235.The P e o p l e ' s B i c e n t e n n i a l as S p o i l s p o r t s ; Jeremy R i f k i n
236.Would Anarchy Work?; Roger MacBride
237.Who's More E l e c t a b l e ? (Ford o r Reagan); John Sears

2 3 8 . L o o k i n g a t the Democratic C o n v e n t i o n ; John Kenneth

Galbraith
2 3 9 . H e n t o f f , Smith and Norton v s . W i l l i a m F. B u c k l e y , J r . ;
Nat H e n t o f f , L i z S m i t h , Harold Norton
240.Free Speech v s . F a i r n e s s i n B r o a d c a s t i n g ; Fred F r i e n d l y
241.Church S c h o o l s and the 1 s t Amendment; Leo P f e f f e r ,
A l l a r d Lowenstein
242.Federal H e a l t h ? ; F. Michael S m i t h , MD, B e r t Seidman
243.The Economic Planks o f Both P a r t i e s ; P i e r r e R i n f r e t
2 4 4 . S h o u l d Books L i k e " L i t t l e Black Sambo" Be on L i b r a r y
S h e l v e s ? ; H a r r i e t P i l p e l , June Jordan
245.Diplomacy f o r a Crowded World; George W. B a l l
246.America i n a H o s t i l e W o r l d ? ; Zbigniew B r z e z i n s k i
2 4 7 . S u b v e r s i o n and the Law; W. Mark F e l t , Roy Cohn
248.The Claims o f Jimmy C a r t e r ; W i l l i a m Shannon, Hodding
Carter I I I
249.The Problems o f the Panama C a n a l ; A r c h b i s h o p Marco
McGrath, Dr. R i c h a r d C h e v e i l l e , Guillermo Chapman
250.Panama and the U . S . ; P r e s i d e n t Demetrio Lakas
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code)
governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of
copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later
u s e s a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten
copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be
liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain
permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this
material.

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and

educational purposes; additional reprints and further
distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other
rights are reserved. For further information, contact Director,
Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University,
Stanford, C A 94305-6010.

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.