Voici le texte de Borges en espagnol. ?Buenas! Hoy es domingo, mayo 2, 2010 y son las 5:57 pm Jorge Luis Borges (1899?1986) Tres versiones de Judas (Artificios, 1944; Ficciones, 1944) There seemed a certainity in degradation. T. E. Lawrence: Seven Pillars of Wisdom, ciii En el Asia Menor o en Alejandr?a, en el segundo siglo de nuestra fe, cuando Bas?lides publicaba que el cosmos era una temeraria o malvada improvisaci?n de ?ngeles deficientes, Niels Runeberg hubiera dirigido, con singular pasi?n intelectual, uno de los covent?culos gn?sticos. Dante le hubiera destinado, tal vez, un sepulcro de fuego; su nombre aumentar?a los cat?logos de heresiarcas menores, entre Satornilo y Carp?crates; alg?n fragmento de sus pr?dicas, exonerado de injurias, perdurar?a en el ap?crifoLiber adversus omnes haereses o habr?a perecido cuando el incendio de una bibilioteca mon?stica devor? el ?ltimo ejemplar del Syntagma. En cambio, Dios le depar? el siglo veinte y la ciudad universitaria de Lund. Ah?, en 1904, public? la primera edici?n de Kristus och Judas; ah?, en 1909, su libro capitalDen hemlige Fr?lsaren. (Del ?ltimo hay versi?n alemana, ejecutada en 1912 por Emili Schering; se llama Der heimliche Heiland.) Antes de ensayar un examen de los precitados trabajos, urge repetir que Nils Runeberg, miembro de la Uni?n Evang?lica Nacional, era hondamente religioso. En un cen?culo de Par?s o aun en Buenos Aires, un literato podr?a muy bien redescubir las tesis de Runeberg; esas tesis, propuestas en un cen?culo, ser?an ligeros ejercicios in?tiles de la negligencia o de la blasfemia. Para Runeberg, fueron la clave que descifra un misterio central de la teolog?a; fueron materia de meditaci?n y an?lisis, de controversia hist?rica y filol?gica, de soberbia, de j?bilo y de terror. Justificaron y desbarataron su vida. Quienes recorran este art?culo, deben asimismo considerar que no registra sino las conclusiones de Runeberg, no su dial?ctica y sus pruebas. Alguien observar? que la conclusi?n precedi? sin duda a las ?pruebas?. ?Qui?n se resigna a buscar pruebas de algo no cre?do por ?l o cuya pr?dica no le importa? La primera edici?n de Kristus och Judas lleva este categ?rico ep?grafe, cuyo sentido, a?os despu?s, monstruosamente dilatar?a el propio Nils Runeberg: No una cosa, todas las cosas que la tradici?n atribuye a Judas Iscariote son falsas (De Quincey, 1857). Precedido por alg?n alem?n, De Quincey especul? que Judas entreg? a Jesucristo para forzarlo a declarar su divinidad y a encender una vasta rebeli?n contra el yugo de Roma; Runeberg sugiere una vindicaci?n de ?ndole metaf?sica. H?bilmente, empieza por destacar la superfluidad del acto de Judas. Observa (como Robertson) que para identificar a un maestro que diariamente predicaba en la sinagoga y que obraba milagros ante concursos de miles de hombres, no se requiere la traici?n de un apostol. Ello, sin embargo, ocurri?. Suponer un error en la Escritura es intolerable; no menos tolerable es admitir un hecho casual en el m?s precioso acontecimiento de la historia del mundo. Ergo, la traici?n de Judas no fue casual; fue un hecho prefijado que tiene su lugar misterioso en la econom?a de la redenci?n. Prosigue Runeberg: El Verbo, cuando fue hecho carne, pas? de la ubicuidad al espacio, de la eternidad a la historia, de la dicha sin l?mites a la mutaci?n y a la carne; para corresponder a tal sacrificio, era necesario que un hombre, en representaci?n de todos los hombres, hiciera un sacrificio condigno. Judas Iscariote fue ese hombre. Judas, ?nico entre los ap?stoles intuy? la secreta divinidad y el terrible prop?sito de Jesus. El Verbo se hab?a rebajado a mortal; Judas, disc?pulo del Verbo, pod?a rebajarse a delator (el peor delito que la infamia soporta) y ser hu?sped del fuego que no se apaga. El orden inferior es un espejo del orden superior; las formas de la tierra corresponden a las formas del cielo; las manchas de la piel son un mapa de las incorruptibles constelaciones; Judas refleja de alg?n modo a Jes?s. De ah? los treinta dineros y el beso; de ah? la muerte voluntaria, para merecer aun m?s la Reprobaci?n. As? dilucid? Nils Runeberg el enigma de Judas. Los te?logos de todas las confesiones lo refutaron. Lars Peter Engstr?m lo acus? de ignorar, o de preterir, la uni?n hipost?tica; Axel Borelius, de renovar la herej?a de los docetas, que negaron la humanidad de Jesus; el acerado obispo de Lund, de contradecir el tercer vers?culo del cap?tulo 22 del Evangelio de San Lucas. Estos variados anatemas influyeron en Runeberg, que parcialmente reescribi? el reprobado libro y modific? su doctrina. Abandon? a sus adversarios el terreno teol?gico y propuso oblicuas razones de orden moral. Admiti? que Jes?s, ?que dispon?a de los considerables recursos que la Omnipotencia puede ofrecer?, no necesitaba de un hombre para redimir a todos los hombres. Rebati?, luego, a quienes afirman que nada sabemos del inexplicable traidor; sabemos, dijo, que fue uno de los ap?stoles, uno de los elegidos para anunciar el reino de los cielos, para sanar enfermos, para limpiar leprosos, para resucitar muertos y para echar fuera demonios (Mateo 10: 7 8; Lucas 9: 1). Un var?n a quien ha distinguido as? el Redentor merece de nosotros la mejor interpretaci?n de sus actos. Imputar su crimen a la codicia (como lo han hecho algunos, alegando a Juan 12: 6) es resignarse al m?vil m?s torpe. Nils Runeberg propone el m?vil contrario: un hiperb?lico y hasta ilimitado ascetismo. El asceta, para mayor gloria de Dios, envilece y mortifica la carne; Judas hizo lo propio con el esp?ritu. Renunci? al honor, al bien, a la paz, al reino de los cielos, como otros, menos heroicamente, al placer.[1] Premedit? con lucidez terrible sus culpas. En el adulterio suelen participar la ternura y la abnegaci?n; en el homicidio, el coraje; en las profanaciones y la blasfemia, cierto fulgor sat?nico. Judas eligi? aquellas culpas no visitadas por ninguna virtud: el abuso de confianza (Juan 12: 6) y la delaci?n. Obr? con gigantesca humildad, se crey? indigno de ser bueno. Pablo ha escrito: El que se gloria, glor?ese en el Se?or (I Corintios 1: 31); Judas busc? el Infierno, porque la dicha del Se?or le bastaba. Pens? que la felicidad, como el bien, es un atributo divino y que no deben usurparlo los hombres.[2] Muchos han descubierto, post factum, que en los justificables comienzos de Runeberg est? su extravagante fin y que Den hemlige Fr?lsaren es una mera perversi?n o exasperaci?n de Kristus och Judas. A fines de 1907, Runeberg termin? y revis? el texto manuscrito; casi dos a?os transcurrieron sin que lo entregara a la imprenta. En octubre de 1909, el libro apareci? con un pr?logo (tibio hasta lo enigm?tico) del hebra?sta dinamarqu?s Erik Erfjord y con este p?rfido ep?grafe: En el mundo estaba y el mundo fue hecho por ?l, y el mundo no lo conoci? (Juan 1: 10). El argumento general no es complejo, si bien la conclusi?n es monstruosa. Dios, arguye Nils Runeberg, se rebaj? a ser hombre para la redenci?n del g?nero humano; cabe conjeturar que fue perfecto el sacrificio obrado por ?l, no invalidado o atenuado por omisiones. Limitar lo que padeci? a la agon?a de una tarde en la cruz es blasfematorio.[3] Afirmar que fue hombre y que fue incapaz de pecado encierra contradicci?n; los atributos de impeccabilitas y de humanitas no son compatibles. Kemnitz admite que el Redentor pudo sentir fatiga, fr?o, turbaci?n, hambre y sed; tambi?n cabe admitir que pudo pecar y perderse. El famoso texto Brotar? como ra?z de tierra sedienta; no hay buen parecer en ?l, ni hermosura; despreciado y el ?ltimo de los hombres; var?n de dolores, experimentado en quebrantos (Isa?as 53: 2 3), es para muchos una previsi?n del crucificado, en la hora de su muerte; para algunos (verbigracia, Hans Lassen Martensen), una refutaci?n de la hermosura que el consenso vulgar atribuye a Cristo; para Runeberg, la puntual profec?a no de un momento sino de todo el atroz porvenir, en el tiempo y en la eternidad, del Verbo hecho carne. Dios totalmente se hizo hombre hasta la infamia, hombre hasta la reprobaci?n y el abismo. Para salvarnos, pudo elegir cualquiera de los destinos que traman la perpleja red de la historia; pudo ser Alejandro o Pit?goras o Rurik o Jes?s; eligi? un ?nfimo destino: fue Judas. En vano propusieron esa revelaci?n las librer?as de Estocolmo y de Lund. Los incr?dulos la consideraron, a priori, un ins?pido y laborioso juego teol?gico; los te?logos la desde?aron. Runeberg intuy? en esa indiferencia ecum?nica una casi milagrosa confirmaci?n. Dios ordenaba esa indiferencia; Dios no quer?a que se propalara en la tierra Su terrible secreto. Runeberg comprendi? que no era llegada la hora: Sinti? que estaban convergiendo sobre ?l antiguas maldiciones divinas; record? a El?as y a Mois?s, ,que en la monta?a se taparon la cara para no ver a Dios; a Isa?as, que se aterr? cuando sus ojos vieron a Aquel cuya gloria llena la tierra; a Sa?l, cuyos ojos quedaron ciegos en el camino de Damasco; al rabino Sime?n ben Aza?, que vio el Para?so y muri?; al famoso hechicero Juan de Viterbo, que enloqueci? cuando pudo ver a la Trinidad; a los Midrashim, que abominan de los imp?os que pronuncian el Shem Hamephorash, el Secreto Nombre de Dios. ?No era ?l, acaso, culpable de ese crimen oscuro? ?No ser?a ?sa la blasfemia contra el Esp?ritu, la que no ser? perdonada (Mateo 12: 31)? Valerio Sorano muri? por haber divulgado el oculto nombre de Roma; ?qu? infinito castigo ser?a el suyo, por haber descubierto y divulgado el horrible nombre de Dios? Ebrio de insomnio y de vertiginosa dial?ctica, Nils Runeberg err? por las calles de Malm?, rogando a voces que le fuera deparada la gracia de compartir con el Redentor el Infierno. Muri? de la rotura de un aneurisma, el primero de marzo de 1912. Los heresi?logos tal vez lo recordar?n; agreg? al concepto del Hijo, que parec?a agotado, las complejidades del mal y del infortunio. 1944 [1] Borelius interroga con burla: ?Por qu? no renunci? a renunciar? ?Porqu? no a renunciar a renunciar?. [2] Euclydes da Cunha, en un libro ignorado por Runeberg, anota que para el heresiarca de Canudos, Antonio Conselheiro, la virtud ?era una casi impiedad?. El lector argentino recordar? pasajes an?logos en la obra de Almafuerte. Runeberg public?, en la hoja simb?lica Sju insegel, un asiduo poema descriptivo, El agua secreta; las primeras estrofas narran los hechos de un tumultuoso d?a; las ?ttimas, el hallazgo de un estanque glacial; el poeta sugiere que la perduraci?n de esa agua silenciosa corrige nuestra in?til violencia y de alg?n modo la permite y la absuelve. El poema concluye as?: El agua de la selva es feliz; podemos ser malvados y dolorosos. [3] Maurice Abramowicz observa: ?J?sus, d'apr?s ce scandinave, a toujours le beau r?le; ses d?boires, gr?ce ? la science des typographes, jouissent d'une r?putabon polyglotte; sa r?sidence de trente trois ans parmi les humains ne fut en somme, qu'une vill?giature?. Erfjord, en el tercer ap?ndice de la Christelige Dogmatik refuta ese pasaje. Anota que la crucifixi?n de Dios no ha cesado, porque lo acontecido una sola vez en el tiempo se repite sin tregua en la eternidad. Judas,ahora, sigue cobrando las monedas de plata; sigue besando a Jesucristo; sigue arrojando las monedas de plata en el templo; sigue anudando el lazo de la cuerda en el campo de sangre. (Erlord, para justificar esa afirmaci?n, invoca el ?ltimo cap?tulo del primer tomo de laVindicaci?n de la eternidad, de Jaromir Hlad?k). Y gracias a Marco Mauas por indicarnos este texto luminoso! Guy de Villers Grand-Champs guy.de.Villers at uclouvain.be Le 2 mai 2010 ? 17:18, lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org a ?crit :

Send Lutecium-group mailing list submissions to lutecium-group at lutecium.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to lutecium-group-request at lutecium.org

You can reach the person managing the list at lutecium-group-owner at lutecium.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Lutecium-group digest..." Today's Topics:

1. Re: La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM (harry haller) 2. Re: La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM (adreas mat) 3. Re: La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM (Marco Mauas)

De : harry haller <haller900 at hotmail.com> Date : 2 mai 2010 14:32:50 HAEC ? : <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> Objet : R?p : [Lutecium-group] La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM R?pondre ? : Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne <lutecium-group at lutecium.org>

Merci beaucoup pour la lettre. On s'etonnait qu'elle ne figure pas sur le blog. je la lirai tout ? l'heure...

...

From: Guy.De.Villers at uclouvain.be Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 01:58:39 +0200 To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org Subject: [Lutecium-group] La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM

lutecium-group: Ceci est un document du Groupe de Travail Lutecium. ---

Envie de naviguer sur Internet sans laisser de trace? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8

De : adreas mat <adreas.mat at gmail.com> Date : 2 mai 2010 16:30:33 HAEC ? : Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> Objet : R?p : [Lutecium-group] La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM R?pondre ? : Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne <lutecium-group at lutecium.org>

bonjour,

bof, je suppose que vous avez pas suivi le journal des journ?es. Si ?a vous int?resse le lien pour le num?ro 78 o? la lettre d' Yves Depelsenaire a ?t? publi? est ceci:

http://www.causefreudienne.net/agenda/evenements/journal-des-journees-de-l-e...

Le 2 mai 2010 14:32, harry haller <haller900 at hotmail.com> a ?crit : lutecium-group: Ceci est un document du Groupe de Travail Lutecium. ---

Merci beaucoup pour la lettre. On s'etonnait qu'elle ne figure pas sur le blog. je la lirai tout ? l'heure...

...

From: Guy.De.Villers at uclouvain.be Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 01:58:39 +0200 To: lutecium-group at lutecium.org Subject: [Lutecium-group] La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM

lutecium-group: Ceci est un document du Groupe de Travail Lutecium. ---

Envie de naviguer sur Internet sans laisser de trace? La solution avec Internet Explorer 8

_______________________________________________ A question? click Help-Me at lutecium.org Lutecium-group mailing list Lutecium-group at lutecium.org http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group

-- andr?as

De : Marco Mauas <marco_m at netvision.net.il> Date : 2 mai 2010 17:18:01 HAEC ? : Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne <lutecium-group at lutecium.org> Objet : R?p : [Lutecium-group] La lettre ? laquelle r?pondait JAM R?pondre ? : Groupe de travail pour la psychanalyse lacanienne <lutecium-group at lutecium.org>

Bonjour, Ce debat est sans doute tres important et interessant. Je suggere de lire le debat avec ce texte de Borges: "Tres versiones de Judas". Voici le texte en anglais. Cordialement, Marco Mauas

-------------------------------

Three Versions of Judas*

Jorge Luis Borges

There seemed a certainty in degradation. - T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom

In Asia Minor or in Alexandria, in the second century of our faith (when Basilides was announcing that the cosmos was a rash and malevolent improvisation engineered by defective angels), Nils Runeberg might have directed, with a singular intellectual passion, one of the Gnostic monasteries. Dante would have destined him, perhaps, for a fiery sepulcher; his name might have augmented the catalogues of heresiarchs, between Satornibus and Carpocrates; some fragment of his preaching, embellished with invective, might have been preserved in the apocryphal Liber adversus omnes haereses or might have perished when the firing of a monastic library consumed the last example of the Syntagma. Instead, God assigned him to the twentieth century, and to the university city of Lund. There, in 1904, he published the first edition of Kristus och Judas; there, in 1909, his masterpiece Dem hemlige Fr?lsaren appeared. (Of this last mentioned work there exists a German version, Der heimliche Heiland, published in 1912 by Emil Schering.)

Before undertaking an examination of the foregoing works, it is necessary to repeat that Nils Runeberg, a member of the National Evangelical Union, was deeply religious. In some salon in Paris, or even in Buenos Aires, a literary person might well rediscover Runeberg's theses; but these arguments, presented in such a setting, would seem like frivolous and idle exercises in irrelevance or blasphemy. To Runeberg they were the key with which to decipher a central mystery of theology; they were a matter of meditation and analysis, of historic and philologic controversy, of loftiness, of jubilation, and of terror. They justified, and destroyed, his life. Whoever peruses this essay should know that it states only Runeberg's conclusions, not his dialectic or his proof. Someone may observe that no doubt the conclusion preceded the "proofs". For who gives himself up to looking for proofs of something he does not believe in or the predication of which he does not care about?

The first edition of Kristus och Judas bears the following categorical epigraph, whose meaning, some years later, Nils Runeberg himself would monstrously dilate: Not one thing, but everything tradition attributes to Judas Iscariot is false. (De Quincey, 1857.)

Preceded in his speculation by some German thinker, De Quincey opined that Judas had betrayed Jesus Christ in order to force him to declare his divinity and thus set off a vast rebellion against the yoke of Rome; Runeberg offers a metaphysical vindication. Skillfully, he begins by pointing out how superfluous was the act of Judas. He observes (as did Robertson) that in order to identify a master who daily preached in the synagogue and who performed miracles before gatherings of thousands, the treachery of an apostle is not necessary. This, nevertheless, occurred. To suppose an error in Scripture is intolerable; no less intolerable is it to admit that there was a single haphazard act in the most precious drama in the history of the world. Ergo, the treachery of Judas was not accidental; it was a predestined deed which has its mysterious place in the economy of the Redemption. Runeberg continues: The Word, when It was made flesh, passed from ubiquity into space, from eternity into history, from blessedness without limit to mutation and death; in order to correspond to such a sacrifice it was necessary that a man, as representative of all men, make a suitable sacrifice. Judas Iscariot was that man. Judas, alone among the apostles, intuited the secret divinity and the terrible purpose of Jesus. The Word had lowered Himself to be mortal; Judas, the disciple of the Word, could lower himself to the role of informer (the worst transgression dishonor abides), and welcome the fire which can not be extinguished. The lower order is a mirror of the superior order, the forms of the earth correspond to the forms of the heavens; the stains on the skin are a map of the incorruptible constellations; Judas in some way reflects Jesus. Thus the thirty pieces of silver and the kiss; thus deliberate self-destruction, in order to deserve damnation all the more. In this manner did Nils Runeberg elucidate the enigma of Judas.

The theologians of all the confessions refuted him. Lars Peter Engstr?m accused him of ignoring, or of confining to the past, the hypostatic union of the Divine Trinity; Axel Borelius charged him with renewing the heresy of the Docetists, who denied the humanity of Jesus; the sharp tongued bishop of Lund denounced him for contradicting the third verse of chapter twenty-two of the Gospel of St. Luke.

These various anathemas influenced Runeberg, who partially rewrote the disapproved book and modified his doctrine. He abandoned the terrain of theology to his adversaries and postulated oblique arguments of a moral order. He admitted that Jesus, "who could count on the considerable resources which Omnipotence offers," did not need to make use of a man to redeem all men. Later, he refuted those who affirm that we know nothing of the inexplicable traitor; we know, he said, that he was one of the apostles, one of those chosen to announce the Kingdom of Heaven, to cure the sick, to cleanse the leprous, to resurrect the dead, and to cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-8; Luke 9:1). A man whom the Redeemer has thus distinguished deserves from us the best interpretations of his deeds. To impute his crime to cupidity (as some have done, citing John 12:6) is to resign oneself to the most torpid motive force. Nils Runeberg proposes an opposite moving force: an extravagant and even limitless asceticism. The ascetic, for the greater glory of God, degrades and mortifies the flesh; Judas did the same with the spirit. He renounced honor, good, peace, the Kingdom of Heaven, as others, less heroically, renounced pleasure.1 With a terrible lucidity he premeditated his offense.

In adultery, there is usually tenderness and self-sacrifice; in murder, courage; in profanation and blasphemy, a certain satanic splendor. Judas elected those offenses unvisited by any virtues: abuse of confidence (John 12 :6) and informing. He labored with gigantic humility; he thought himself unworthy to be good. Paul has written: Whoever glorifieth himself, let him glorify himself in the Lord. (I Corinthians 1:31); Judas sought Hell because the felicity of the Lord sufficed him. He thought that happiness, like good, is a divine attribute and not to be usurped by men.2

Many have discovered post factum that in the justifiable beginnings of Runeberg lies his extravagant end and that Dem hemlige Fr?lsaren is a mere perversion or exacerbation of Kristus och Judas. Toward the end of 1907, Runeberg finished and revised the manuscript text; almost two years passed without his handing it to the printer. In October of 1909, the book appeared with a prologue (tepid to the point of being enigmatic) by the Danish Hebraist Erik Erfjord and bearing this perfidious epigraph: In the world he was, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not (John 1:10). The general argument is not complex, even if the conclusion is monstrous. God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that thesacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous.3To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.

In vain did the bookstores of Stockholm and Lund offer this revelation. The incredulous considered it, a priori, an insipid and laborious theological game; the theologians disdained it. Runeberg intuited from this universal indifference an almost miraculous confirmation. God had commanded this indifference; God did not wish His terrible secret propagated in the world. Runeberg understood that the hour had not yet come. He sensed ancient and divine curses converging upon him, he remembered Elijah and Moses, who covered their faces on the mountain top so as not to see God; he remembered Isaiah, who prostrated himself when his eyes saw That One whose glory fills the earth; Saul who was blinded on the road to Damascus; the rabbi Simon ben Azai, who saw Paradise and died; the famous soothsayer John of Viterbo, who went mad when he was able to see the Trinity; the Midrashim, abominating the impious who pronounce the Shem Hamephorash, the secret name of God. Wasn't he, perchance, guilty of this dark crime? Might not this be the blasphemy against the Spirit, the sin which will not be pardoned (Matthew 12:3)? Valerius Soranus died for having revealed the occult name of Rome; what infinite punishment would be his for having discovered and divulged the terrible name of God?

Intoxicated with insomnia and with vertiginous dialectic, Nils Runeberg wandered through the streets of Malm?, praying aloud that he be given the grace to share Hell with the Redeemer.

He died of the rupture of an aneurysm, the first day of March 1912. The writers on heresy, the heresiologists, will no doubt remember him; he added to the concept of the Son, which seemed exhausted, the complexities of calamity and evil.

up1 Borelius mockingly interrogates: Why did he not renounce to renounce? Why not renounce renouncing?

up2 Euclydes da Cunha, in a book ignored by Runeberg, notes that for the heresiarch of Canudos, Antonio Conselheiro, virtue was "a kind of impiety almost." An Argentine reader could recall analogous passages in the work of Almafuerte. Runeberg published, in the symbolist sheet Sju insegel, an assiduously descriptive poem, "The Secret Water": the first stanzas narrate the events of one tumultuous day; the last, the finding of a glacial pool; the poet suggests that the eternalness of this silent water checks our useless violence, and in some way allows and absolves it. The poem concludes in this way:

The water of the forest is still and felicitous, And we, we can be vicious and full of pain.

up3 Maurice Abramowicz observes: "Jesus, d'apres ce scandinave, a toujours le beau role; ses deboires, grace a la science des typographes, jouissent d'une reputation polyglotte; sa residence de trente-trois ans parmis les humains ne fut, en somne, qu'une villegiature." Erfjord, in the third appendix to the Christelige Dogmatik, refutes this passage. He writes that the crucifying of God has not ceased, for anything which has happened once in time is repeated ceaselessly through all eternity. Judas, now, continues to receive the pieces of silver; he continues to hurl the pieces of silver in the temple; he continues to knot the hangman's noose on the field of blood. (Erfjord, to justify this affirmation, invokes the last chapter of the first volume of the Vindication of Eternity, by Jaromir Hladlk.)

Translator unknown.

* From: "Artificios" (1944). In the introduction, Borges writes: "Schopenhauer, De Quincey, Mauthner, Shaw, Chesterton, Le?n Bloy, form the heterogenic census of the authors I continually re-read. In the christological fantasy titled "Three Versions of Judas" I think I perceive the remote influence of the last [Bloy]."

_______________________________________________ Lutecium-group mailing list Lutecium-group at lutecium.org http://cerium.lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lutecium-group