Jorge Luis Borges and Greater Greece

Jorge Luis Borges and Greater Greece

ερανίσματα

Η φιλοσοφική μυθοπλασία του Borges και τα πνευματικά δράματα του Πλάτωνα είναι ίσως οι πιο περίπλοκες καταγραφές στην δυτική ιστορία των προσπαθειών για έντεχνη διασύνδεση μύθου και λόγου, επιχειρηματολογίας και αφηγήσεως, σκέψεως και φαντασίας. Η αντιπαράθεσή τους, που παρουσιάζεται στην ακόλουθη έρευνα, στοχεύει στην επίδειξη των πολύπλοκων συνδέσεων μεταξύ της κλασικής και της σύγχρονης λογοτεχνίας και σκέψεως.

Η μελέτη δείχνει πώς η πλατωνική άποψη ρίχνει νέο φως στο δοκιμιακό και φανταστικό έργο του Borges, παρέχοντας αυτό που ο Wittgenstein αποκαλεί μια αλλαγή πτυχής στην εξέταση του λογοτεχνικού και θεωρητικού έργου του Borges ως συνολικού σώματος κειμένων. Το πρώτο μέρος της μελέτης πραγματεύεται τρία θεωρητικά θέματα: την αλληλεπίδραση μύθου και λόγου, την αναζήτηση της γνώσεως και την θεωρία των αρχετύπων.

Το δεύτερο μέρος είναι πιο αισθητικά προσανατολισμένο, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την καλλιτεχνική έμπνευση, την λογοτεχνική αναπαράσταση, την αφηγηματική ταυτότητα, τη φύση του γραπτού λόγου, την πράξη της αναγνώσεως και την πράξη της γραφής. Συνολικά, η μελέτη προσπαθεί να φανερώσει τον βαθμό στον οποίο η σκέψη του Borges είναι βαθιά ριζωμένη στα κλασικά δόγματα και στα πλατωνικά θέματα και, με βάση αυτό, να προσφέρει νέες ερμηνείες σε ιστορίες και ποιήματα του Borges.      

          

Jorge Luis Borgesʹ philosophical fiction and Platoʹs intellectual dramas are perhaps the most intricate records in Western history of attempts to artfully interweave mythos and logos, argumentation and narrative, thought and imagination. Their juxtaposition, presented in the following investigation, aims at demonstrating the complex connections between classical and modern literature and thought.

The study shows how the Platonic viewpoint sheds new light on Borgesʹ essayistic and fictional work, providing what Wittgenstein calls an aspect change in considering Borgesʹ literary and theoretical work as a whole textual corpus. The first part of the study deals with three theoretical themes: the interrelation of myth and logos, the quest for knowledge, and the theory of the archetypes.

The second part is more aesthetically oriented, attending to artistic inspiration, literary representation, narrative identity, the nature of the written word, the act of reading, and the act of writing. All in all, the study strives to manifest the extent to which Borgesʹ thought is deeply rooted in classical doctrines and Platonic themes, and, based on that, to provide new interpretations to Borgesian stories and poems.

ΜΥΘΟΣ & ΛΟΓΟΣ: ΠΛΑΤΩΝ, ΠΡΟΣΩΚΡΑΤΙΚΟΙ & BORGES [Myth and Logos - Plato, the Presocratics and Borges]

THE ANCIENT QUARREL: MYTHOS VERSUS LOGOS

I suppose there is no essential difference between philosophy and poetry, since both stand for the same kind of puzzlement. Except that in the case of philosophy the answer is given in a logical way, and in the case of poetry you use metaphors.

(Borges at Eighty 17)

When Borges was asked whether there is any part of Plato's work he was particularly interested in, he replied: "With Plato, you feel that he would reason in an abstract way and would also use myth. He would do those two things at the same time."1 Indeed, there is no doubt that Plato was the most ingenious mythological- philosopher in Western thought, a thinker who managed to artfully interweave logos and mythos in his dialogues.2 Socrates justifies the use of myth in philosophical discourse while discussing the nature of falsehood in the second Book of the Republic: since we do not know what actually happened in the past, he says, mythos can be most useful in constructing an account by likening the false to the true as much as possible (382c). Likewise, Borges remarkably integrates philosophy, theology, and fantastic literature in his writing. This tendency crowned him with the title "literary philosopher" and urged some critics to define his stories as "metaphysical similes."3 It seems, thus, that Borges and Plato share a firm common denominator by being writers who work in the twilight zone in which mythos and logos interact and mingle. On the other hand, it is in Plato's work that mythos has become the 'other' of logos, the irrational and uncritical speech that shares no common grounds with the contemplative quest of the 'lover of wisdom.' This separation between mythos and logos is the basis of the sharp Platonic distinction between philosophy and poetry. As for Borges, despite his frequent use of philosophical systems in his writing, he consistently tends to underestimate the philosophical value of his work.4 Therefore, we observe a fundamental tension in both cases: both Borges and Plato are inclined to combine mythos and logos in their praxis, while insisting that these notions be essentially separated in their contemplation. The aim of the following chapter is to clarify the function, the tension, and the entangled interconnections between mythos and logos in their works. Etymologically, the Greek word logos is derived from the verb legein (to collect, to gather), and it was used in the Archaic and Classical periods to indicate `speech,' account,"definition,' and also 'a thing' and, generally, 'reason'.5 The Presocratic philosopher Heraclitus goes further and considers logos as the supreme principle of the universe; this tension between the subjective and the objective meanings of logos is clearly expressed in his Fragment B50: "Listening not to me, but to the logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one." Here, he distinguishes between his own logos and the general logos that communicates through his words. Logos is thus presented in Presocratic thought as a general principle, reflected in human words and thoughts.6 This notion is the forerunner of the Platonic view in which logos is grasped as a true account of the nature of a thing (Theaetetus 208c) and of his depiction of the philosopher as the one 'who follows the footsteps of logos' (Crito 46a). Mythos, on the other hand, etymologically means a specific kind of "speech." In the Iliad it is "a speech-act indicating authority, performed at length, usually [] in public, with a focus on full attention to every detail."7 Generally, in the Pre-socratic period this notion was used to denote a special category of speech that implies power and efficacy: an authoritative speech-act.8 It was only with the rise of the abstract discourse of philosophy (and, what goes hand in hand, the articulation of textual writing which supplements the oral utterance) that mythos became a negative notion.9 More specifically, the undermining process of the mythos began with Herodotus and Pindar and culminated in Plato's dialogues. Gradually, mythos became the obscure irrational "other" that opposes the rational bright logos, the unreflective and inaccurate narrative that opposes the clear-cut analytical account of philosophy. At the same time, philosophers who retained a highly critical view of the mythos continued to use it in their own theoretical writing, preserving it as a shadow of its former self (Morgan 16-26). This rejection-attraction ambivalence of early philosophy toward rnythos has drawn the attention of classical scholars. What is the justification, they ask, of incorporating the mythos into abstract writing while disparaging it as irrational and harmful? Morgan claims that, first of all, myth and philosophy are "dynamic, not static categories" so that the boundary between myth and philosophy must continually be redrawn. According to her view, the mythological world of the poets is the larger cultural context inside which early philosophy operated. Thus, myths appeared to be an important medium for early philosophers "to think through problems of literary, social, and linguistic convention" (Morgan 5). In other words, myths are taken to be the womb of the philosophic embryo. Apart from this contextual interpretation, Morgan supplies two concrete justifications for the extensive use of myths in philosophical writing. The first can be called the honeyed cup approach {Kathryn Morgan 2000, p. 3}. In this approach, myths "add color to the dry, technical, and forbidding content of philosophical discourse." They soften the severe traits of philosophy, but, at the same time, they are essentially separable from the content of philosophical discourse (Morgan 4). This view presumes that philosophical discourse is essentially purely analytical, whereas mythical expression serves as a mere ornamentation, lacking any kind of noetic quality. This seems to be [.] a too self-conscious and manipulative approach for the rather naïve Presocratic thinker, although it may be compatible indeed with the highly ingenious writ. ing of Plato. The second justification is more flexible and it endows tnythos with some intellectual value. Its upholders assume that mythical rhetoric manages to express, somehow, what scientific language cannot, and that it takes over Where philosophy proper leaves off (ibid.). According to this view, the use of mythos is internally related to the limitedness of theoretical utterance: mythos can serve, for instance, to communicate the ineffable traits of transcendental realms and the qualities of metaphysical knowledge. There is no doubt that the most intricate expression of this rejection - attraction ambivalence is manifested in Plato's dialogues....

Η ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΔΙΑΜΑΧΗ: ΜΥΘΟΣ ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΥ

Υποθέτω ότι δεν υπάρχει ουσιαστική διαφορά μεταξύ της φιλοσοφίας και της ποιήσεως, αφού και οι δύο αντιπροσωπεύουν το ίδιο είδος απορίας. Μόνο που στην περίπτωση της φιλοσοφίας η απάντηση δίδεται με λογικό τρόπο, και στην περίπτωση της ποιήσεως χρησιμοποιούνται μεταφορές.

(Borges at Eighty 17)

Όταν ο Borges ρωτήθηκε αν υπάρχει κάποιο μέρος του έργου του Πλάτωνα που τον ενδιέφερε ιδιαίτερα, απάντησε: «Με τον Πλάτωνα, νιώθεις ότι θα συλλογιζόταν με αφηρημένο τρόπο και θα χρησιμοποιούσε επίσης τον μύθο. Θα έκανε αυτά τα δύο πράγματα ταυτόχρονα».2 Ο Σωκράτης δικαιολογεί τη χρήση του μύθου στον φιλοσοφικό λόγο ενώ συζητά τη φύση του ψεύδους στο δεύτερο Βιβλίο της Πολιτείας: αφού δεν γνωρίζουμε τι πραγματικά συνέβη στο παρελθόν, λέει, ο μύθος μπορεί να είναι πιο χρήσιμος στην κατασκευή ενός απολογισμού παρομοιάζοντας το ψευδές με το αληθινό όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο (382c). Ομοίως, ο Borges συνδυάζει αξιοσημείωτα την φιλοσοφία, την θεολογία και την φανταστική λογοτεχνία στη γραφή του. Αυτή η τάση του απέδωσε τον τίτλο «φιλόσοφος της λογοτεχνίας» και παρότρυνε ορισμένους κριτικούς να ορίσουν τις ιστορίες του ως «μεταφυσικές παρομοιώσεις».3 Φαίνεται, λοιπόν, ότι ο Borges και ο Πλάτων μοιράζονται έναν σταθερό κοινό παρονομαστή ως συγγραφείς που εργάζονται στη ζώνη του λυκόφωτος στην οποία αλληλεπιδρούν και αναμειγνύονται ο μύθος και ο λόγος. Από την άλλη πλευρά, στο έργο του Πλάτωνα είναι που ο μύθος έχει γίνει ο «άλλος» του λόγου, ο παράλογος και άκριτος λόγος που δεν μοιράζεται κανένα κοινό έδαφος με τη στοχαστική αναζήτηση του «εραστή της σοφίας». Αυτός ο διαχωρισμός μεταξύ του μύθου και του λόγου είναι η βάση της οξείας πλατωνικής διακρίσεως μεταξύ φιλοσοφίας και ποιήσεως. Όσο για τον Borges, παρά τη συχνή χρήση των φιλοσοφικών συστημάτων στην γραφή του, τείνει σταθερά να υποτιμά τη φιλοσοφική αξία του έργου του. Στόχος του κεφαλαίου που ακολουθεί είναι να αποσαφηνίσει την λειτουργία, την ένταση και τις πολύπλευρες διασυνδέσεις μεταξύ μύθου και λόγου στα έργα τους. Ετυμολογικά, η ελληνική λέξη λόγος προέρχεται από το ρήμα λέγειν (συλλέγω, συγκεντρώνω) και χρησιμοποιήθηκε στην αρχαϊκή και την κλασική περίοδο για να δηλώσει «λόγο», απολογισμό, ορισμό, καθώς και «πράγμα» και, γενικά, «λόγος». Ο Προσωκρατικός φιλόσοφος Ηράκλειτος προχωρά παραπέρα και θεωρεί τον λόγο ως την υπέρτατη αρχή του σύμπαντος. Αυτή η ένταση μεταξύ της υποκειμενικής και της αντικειμενικής σημασίας του λογου εκφράζεται ξεκάθαρα στο απόσπασμά του Β50: «Ακούγοντας όχι εμένα, αλλά τον λόγο, είναι σοφό να συμφωνήσουμε ότι όλα τα πράγματα είναι ένα».

Εδώ διακρίνει τον δικό του λόγο και τον λόγο εν γένει που 'επικοινωνεί μέσα από τα λόγια του. Ο Λόγος παρουσιάζεται έτσι στην Προσωκρατική σκέψη ως μια γενική αρχή, που αντανακλάται σε ανθρώπινες λέξεις και σκέψεις.6 Αυτή η έννοια είναι ο πρόδρομος της πλατωνικής απόψεως κατά την οποία ο λόγος γίνεται αντιληπτός ως αληθινή περιγραφή της φύσεως ενός πράγματος (Theaetetus 208c) και της απεικόνισής του του φιλοσόφου ως εκείνου που ακολουθεί τον λόγο. Μύθος, από την άλλη, ετυμολογικά σημαίνει ένα συγκεκριμένο είδος «λόγου». Στην Ιλιάδα είναι «μια αυθεντία που δείχνει την ομιλία-πράξη, που εκτελείται εκτενώς, συνήθως [..] δημόσια, με έμφαση στην πλήρη προσοχή σε κάθε λεπτομέρεια».7 Γενικά, στην Προσωκρατική περίοδο αυτή η έννοια χρησιμοποιήθηκε για να δηλώσει μια ειδική κατηγορία λόγου που υποδηλώνει δύναμη και αποτελεσματικότητα: έναν έγκυρο λόγο-πράξη.

Πιο συγκεκριμένα, η διαδικασία υπονόμευσης του μύθου ξεκίνησε με τον Ηρόδοτο και τον Πίνδαρο και κορυφώθηκε στους διαλόγους του Πλάτωνα. Σταδιακά, ο μύθος έγινε ο σκοτεινός παράλογος «άλλος» που αντιτίθεται στον ορθολογικό λαμπερό λόγο, η μη αναστοχαστική και ανακριβής αφήγηση που αντιτίθεται στη σαφή αναλυτική περιγραφή της φιλοσοφίας. Ταυτόχρονα, οι φιλόσοφοι που διατήρησαν μια εξαιρετικά κριτική άποψη για τον μύθο συνέχισαν να τον χρησιμοποιούν στη δική τους θεωρητική γραφή, διατηρώντας τον ως σκιά του προηγούμενου εαυτού του (Morgan 16-26). Αυτή η αμφιθυμία απόρριψης-έλξης της πρώιμης φιλοσοφίας προς τον ρνύθο έχει τραβήξει την προσοχή των κλασικών μελετητών. Ποια είναι η δικαιολογία, ρωτούν, η ενσωμάτωση του μύθου στην αφηρημένη γραφή ενώ τον περιφρονούν ως παράλογο και επιβλαβές; Ο Morgan ισχυρίζεται ότι, πρώτα απ 'όλα, ο μύθος και η φιλοσοφία είναι «δυναμικές, όχι στατικές κατηγορίες», έτσι ώστε το όριο μεταξύ μύθου και φιλοσοφίας πρέπει συνεχώς να επανασχεδιάζεται. Σύμφωνα με την άποψή της, ο μυθολογικός κόσμος των ποιητών είναι το ευρύτερο πολιτισμικό πλαίσιο μέσα στο οποίο λειτουργούσε η πρώιμη φιλοσοφία. ..

This paper examines the prevalent critical outlook concerning Borges' attitude towards philosophy, demonstrating that he is generally regarded as a dogmatic sceptic or nihilist. A close analysis of his writings reveals that this interpretative paradigm is imprecise, however. In its place, I aim at offering a new perspective regarding the place philosophy holds in Borges' writing and thought, illustrating how he conceives philosophy not as an enclosed theoretical system but rather as a dynamic, incessant and thus incomplete quest for genuine knowledge. Reflecting the classical tension of philo-sophia as the constant craving for wisdom, Borges thus seems to be closer to Socrates than the dogmatic sceptical tradition of the Sophists. This Socratic stance is dominant throughout his fictional and poetic writing. Hereby, he creates a series of literary symbols, such as the labyrinth and the absolute map, that represent and prompt the philosophical search – returning the reader to the primary experience of profound thaumazein (wonderment).

..

CHAPTER 1

Labyrinthal Paradigms: Western Philosophy in Borges’ Oeuvre

The impossibility of penetrating the divine scheme of the universe does not, however, dissuade us from planning human schemes, even though we know they must be provisional. (Borges 2003a, 229)

“I am neither a thinker nor a moralist, but simply a man of letters who turns his own perplexities and that respected system of perplexities we call philosophy into the forms of literature” (Borges 1969, xv). Appearing in the foreword to one of the numerous studies of his work, this comment by Borges has often been quoted by subsequent scholars. Pointing to the close and complex relationship between literary writing and systematic philosophic thought, it first adduces one of the prominent features of his vast oeuvre – the philosophical theories that inform all the layers of his works. This is then followed by what appears to be a skeptical – perhaps disparaging – view of his own modest philosophical inquisitions in particular, and the very human attempt to constitute a comprehensive philosophical system in general.

This approach is heightened in his Norton lectures at Harvard (1968), wherein he observed,

The great English writer and dreamer Thomas De Quincey wrote … that to discover a new problem was quite as important as discovering the solution to an old one. But I cannot even offer you that; I can offer you only time-honored perplexities. And yet, why need I worry about this? What is a history of philosophy but a history of the perplexities of the Hindus, of the Chinese, of the Greeks, of the Schoolmen, of Bishop Berkeley, of Hume, of Schopenhauer, and so on? I merely wish to share those perplexities with you. (2002) ← 7 | 8 →

ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΕΙΣ

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43807288?read-now=1&seq=9&fbclid=IwY2xjawIQfkNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHdimqViMd8_vCstw1CNq_qxyu3QeBVAo5vKfF2BhNAE1-q9N1Ol90GMFqw_aem_8ARKnmbBuXY0e3fTm9vyNg#page_scan_tab_contents

Conal Byrne, K. B. 1999. "Inventing the New World: Finding the Mythology of Jorge Luis Borges," Hispanófila 126, pp. 67-83.

"Death and the Compass" provides a devastating instance of choice-chance laying a foundation for the Borgesian labyrinth. The maze is one of whim overseen by rigor, of reality dominated by intelligence:

I swore by the god who sees from two faces, and by all the gods of fever and of mirrors, to weave a labyrinth around the man who had imprisoned my brother. I have woven it, and it holds: the materials

are a dead writer on heresies, a compass, an eighteenth century sect, a Greek word, a dagger, the rhombs of a paint shop." (Borges, P.A. 11; emphasis added).

https://www.academia.edu/953715/Borges_and_Plato_a_Game_with_Shifting_Mirrors?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQDaJleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHV3XqzPEJ1GaKhYrjxgToicZPhbLfJVc9uQ7VeaZFgAILIie6LO0NJM5Mw_aem_98FQ6BWba3RDGODMSvlTJw

Mualem, S. 2012. Borges and Plato: A Game with Shifting Mirrors, Vervuert-Iberoamericana.

https://www.academia.edu/108918678/Myth_and_Logos_Plato_the_Presocratics_and_Borges?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQDo1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVds_A3LHfhKTTHGKM_MIrWLeFYzB7R84idhcxrpVN-OKchKfS_A9vEiFQ_aem_Cmk3At6c27UYJbYEZpPuNg

Mualem, S. 2012. "Myth and Logos - Plato, the Presocratics and Borges," in Borges and Plato: A Game with Shifting Mirrors, S. Mualem, Vervuert-Iberoamericana, pp. 19-49.

Jorge Luis Borgesʹ philosophical fiction and Platoʹs intellectual dramas are perhaps the most intricate records in Western history of attempts to artfully interweave mythos and logos, argumentation and narrative, thought and imagination. Their juxtaposition, presented in the following investigation, aims at demonstrating the complex connections between classical and modern literature and thought. 

The study shows how the Platonic viewpoint sheds new light on Borgesʹ essayistic and fictional work, providing what Wittgenstein calls an aspect change in considering Borgesʹ literary and theoretical work as a whole textual corpus. The first part of the study deals with three theoretical themes: the interrelation of myth and logos, the quest for knowledge, and the theory of the archetypes. 

The second part is more aesthetically oriented, attending to artistic inspiration, literary representation, narrative identity, the nature of the written word, the act of reading, and the act of writing. All in all, the study strives to manifest the extent to which Borgesʹ thought is deeply rooted in classical doctrines and Platonic themes, and, based on that, to provide new interpretations to Borgesian stories and poems.

---

https://networks.h-net.org/node/73374/announcements/12871420/cfp-jorge-luis-borges-and-greek-philosophy-praise-ancients?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQDtpleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbBro_uDLif78fSx20TTjvtPzuNENsFB-pK1fBWUPIPLNdojkSdOtBPalg_aem_0B9CHcgdD6YYS3SmQgYwPw

Giannis Stamatellos, G. 2023. "Call for PapersJorge Luis Borges and Greek Philosophy. In Praise of the Ancients".

Scholars dedicated to the writings of Jorge Luis Borges have long been interested in the way the author draws ideas, images, and arguments from the philosophical tradition. But two opposing views seem to surface from many of their works. In broad terms, one of these views considers that Borges uses philosophical materials for literary and aesthetic purposes, while the other one holds that Borges is himself an authentic philosopher who employs literature as a vehicle for introducing philosophical questions and discussing philosophical problems. Beyond this hermeneutical quandary, however, is the certainty that Borges is an avid reader of the philosophical tradition and that he introduces in his texts philosophical themes which play a constitutive role in his imaginative and insightful creations.

In the works of Borges, many ancient Greek philosophers are named and even their doctrines are often explained, evincing both the vast knowledge and understanding that he had attained about them and his mastery of the literary form into which he interweaved his references and accounts. Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides and Zeno, Democritus, Socrates and Protagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus: these are many of the ancient philosophers that Borges explicitly recalls in his works. The present proposal, hence, aims to gather papers that examine the role ancient philosophers and their thought play in Borges’ writings. Taking as an antecedent the previous scholarship that deal with the philosophical aspect of Borges’ work, we propose to focus the present book on ancient Greek philosophy as a key component of his texts. We welcome papers that approach this broad topic from the perspectives of the History of Philosophy and from Literary Studies and encourage all contributions that shed light on the mode of the presence of ancient philosophy in the work of Jorge Luis Borges.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/abs/jorge-luis-borges-and-the-classics-l-jansen-borges-classics-global-encounters-with-the-graecoroman-past-pp-xxii-174-ills-cambridge-cambridge-university-press-2018-cased-75-isbn-9781108418409/DAD076293329176EEC0198DD00D0B46E?fbclid=IwY2xjawIQD3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWsT_IiYlKAekjnLzFoz_yIDr0-M9nGBQLKIjkac8NKlniL2e21gd4ky9A_aem_DCgZSsKRpyVUqrDpRL-auw

González Echevarría, R. 2019. Rev. of L. Jansen, Borges’ Classics. Global Encounters with the Graeco-Roman Past, in  The Classical Review 69.2, pp. 655-657.

https://www.academia.edu/37208051/Labyrinthal_Paradigms_Western_Philosophy_in_Borges_Oeuvre

https://www.amazon.com/Mazes-Amazements-Western-Philosophy-Hispanic/dp/1787071979?asin=1787071979&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

https://www.academia.edu/keypass/ZHFwbXB0VHgvcURKWnhSV1JjZzltUm5DV0srTnpoQW9IeTFQY1RRUDdPOD0tLUR0endOYWNlVjFmODR0UHIwMFpVN1E9PQ==--44d0c4e7550720c0f4cc25efb78c4507f1a48ace/t/oLi9-SopwEhH-158LW/resource/work/37208051/Labyrinthal_Paradigms_Western_Philosophy_in_Borges_Oeuvre?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper

Shlomy Mualem. 2017. "Labyrinthal Paradigms: Western Philosophy in Borges’ Oeuvre," in Mazes and amazements: Borges and Western Philosophy, Oxford: Peter Lang, pp. 7-27. 

https://www.academia.edu/7809412/Reading_and_Re_Reading_Jorge_Luis_Borges_Literary_Criticism_on_Edgar_Allan_Poe

Emron Esplin. 2010. "Reading and Re-Reading: Jorge Luis Borges’ Literary Criticism on Edgar Allan Poe," Comparative American Studies 8.4 (2010): 247-266.