{"id":7435,"date":"2022-08-30T01:24:50","date_gmt":"2022-08-30T01:24:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.rutgers.edu\/books-we-read\/?p=7435"},"modified":"2022-08-29T10:11:28","modified_gmt":"2022-08-29T10:11:28","slug":"borbely4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.rutgers.edu\/books-we-read\/borbely4\/","title":{"rendered":"Et. In. Arcadia. Ego. \u2013 Szil\u00e1rd Borb\u00e9ly and Intertextual References"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Portrait\"<\/a>
Szil\u00e1rd Borb\u00e9ly (Photo: Lenke Szil\u00e1gyi, courtesy Kalligram Press, Budapest)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Speaking of his poetry in an interview in 2005, Borb<\/span>\u00e9ly claims that he doesn<\/span>\u2019t intend to discuss deep philosophical questions in his works. <\/span>Instead, he works on solving the task of creating a system of rules that builds on his previous works, but breaks away from them or obliterates them. Admitting that he doesn\u2019t think there are a lot of topics he could try to talk about, he chooses to reiterate the same topics over and over. He claims that, instead of planning out carefully what he is going to say or or if he is going to insert something intentionally into a text, he is looking for a specific modality in language use. Figuring out its rules, he would let the text organize itself, as it starts working by its own rules, under its own power. (<\/span>Borb<\/span>\u00e9ly<\/span>, 2005, p. 854) Following the strategy \u201cThe novel as it\u2019s writing itself,\u201d as P\u00e9ter Esterh\u00e1zy\u2019s famous quote from <\/span>Termel\u00e9si reg\u00e9ny <\/span><\/i>(English: The Novel of Production, Esterh\u00e1zy, 1979) suggests, seems to have worked for Borb\u00e9ly in prose and poetry, drawing upon his intimate relationship with the vast resources of the Hungarian language spanning centuries, styles, religions, disciplines, and vernaculars.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Borb\u00e9ly also borrows another favorite method from Esterh\u00e1zy (and others, of course): transposing texts (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, excerpts, or motives) from other literary works, inserting them \u201cas is\u201d or with minimal alteration and integrating them into his works\u2013\u2013a nifty trick to confuse and evade the censors of Communist Hungary. Whether these borrowings are identifiable or not in the final work is a question for critics and translators. Preserving the original feel, these so-called guest texts, in their fragmented existence, certainly expand the horizon of the text, while adding to the workload of translators: they must become both detectives and literary critics, tracking down the source text and capturing the subtle tone of the author\u2019s reference to it. A new layer of meaning provided via the wealth of intertextual references render the translator\u2019s work even more complicated, even though they might be rather obvious for the well-read native speaker who has grown up on texts written by <\/span>Dezs\u0151 Kosztol\u00e1nyi<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Ern\u0151 Sz\u00e9p<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Attila J\u00f3zsef<\/span><\/a>. References to world literature might come with sources cited, but it\u2019s quite a challenge to decipher some, especially considering that Borb\u00e9ly was likely reading them in Hungarian\u2013\u2013such as works by Franz Kafka and Walter Benjamin, appearing in both <\/span>Berlin\u2013Hamlet<\/span><\/i><\/a> and <\/span>Kafka\u2019s Son<\/span><\/i>. Deep or hidden connections in Borb\u00e9ly’s oeuvre and their relationship with his predecessors in Hungarian and world literature will challenge critics for a while, for all the brilliant, pensive literary criticism covering his works, mostly in Hungarian<\/span>. (Note:<\/span> Several Hungarian literary journals dedicated special issues to Borb\u00e9ly after his death. A few examples of comprehensive studies on Borb\u00e9ly\u2019s work in Hungarian, including criticism before his death, are Angyalosi, 2016; Kulcs\u00e1r-Szab\u00f3, 2019; M\u00e1rton, 2005; Schein, 2021; Valasty\u00e1n, 2018; Visy, 2016.)<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Intertextual references to Hungarian and world literature can be challenging for a translator not only because the reference must be recognized, identified, and tracked down, but more because recontextualization of fragments alone might elicit a different meaning in various cultures, including elements omitted intentionally. For example, the quote <\/span>Et. In. Arcadia. Ego<\/span><\/i> ties Borb<\/span>\u00e9ly<\/span> to the area of his scholarly research, 18<\/span>th<\/span>-century Hungarian literature, especially to a poet called Mih\u00e1ly Csokonai Vit\u00e9z (Borb\u00e9ly, 2006). It refers to the planned inscription on his tombstone in Debrecen, Hungary, which was considered as an insult in some literary circles after Csokonai\u2019s death, leading to the infamous \u201cArcadia debate\u201d in the town. The message is actually the highest appreciation of a literary figure who \u201calso lived in Arcadia,\u201d that is, Debrecen.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Reformed<\/a><\/p>\n

True to himself, Borb<\/span>\u00e9ly doesn\u2019t hide anything; instead, he routinely revisits previous texts of his own, including several related to Franz Kafka, admittedly a great influence on him since his very early years. Reading <\/span>Kafka\u2019s <\/span>The Trial<\/span><\/i><\/a> was a life-changing experience for the adolescent Borb<\/span>\u00e9ly, leading him to contemplate the meaning of faith and religion. Not only does he recall in interviews having read it at one sitting, enchanted by the helplessnes and vulnerability so familiar to him as a young boy (Borb\u00e9ly, 2009), but he repeats the story in the chapter <\/span>Kafka in the Bathroom <\/span><\/i>(where <\/span>\u201c<\/span>Kafka\u201d refers to the book itself) in <\/span>Kafka\u2019s Son<\/span><\/i> too, changing the person of the narrator from the third to the first (Kulcs\u00e1r-Szab\u00f3, 2019).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

References<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n