The irony that I'm seeing here in Pannonia's situation is a reflection of the irony in the Church's treatment of dissent.* The first group of heretics, the Monotoni, propose that time is cyclical, that every present moment will be repeated without end; for that Euphorbius is burned. Now the Histrioni teach that time can never repeat itself, that each instant is of necessity unique -- based on this and other crimes, an inquisitorial court is formed to prosecute them. The church's problem is with any intellectual innovation (as Aurelianus himself notes with respect to the first persecution) rather than with the specific content of the teachings.
This makes it difficult to sympathize with either of the main characters -- they are after all participating (cynically in Aurelianus' case and in John's case as a true believer, if I am reading correctly) in these inquisitions on the side of power -- I'm left to identify with the narrator as a voice of sarcasm and occasionally with a minor character like Euphorbius. Borges describes the main characters in his afterword as "a dream, a somewhat melancholy dream, of personal identity" -- which makes me wonder who he is trying to identify with.
*Side thought here -- I have never thought of Borges as a particularly political or satirical author. Is he poking fun at the power relationships in the mediæval Church here, or primarily interested in painting Aurelianus as a tragic figure? It would be worth spending some time working out what I mean by a "political and satirical author"...
There is a further irony, I think, in the juxtaposition of John of Pannonia's persecution with the vandalism of the library in the first paragraph of the story -- Volume XII of Civitas Dei was misinterpreted because the rest of the work had been destroyed; and Pannonia's 20 words were used against him because the context of his treatise had been (wilfully) forgotten.
posted evening of Sunday, June 20th, 2010
➳ More posts about The Aleph
➳ More posts about Short Stories
➳ More posts about Jorge Luis Borges
➳ More posts about Readings
➳ More posts about The Theologians
I read this story a long time ago and have been thinking about it recently. Well, the first thing that struck me about Borges' story is the intricate realism by which he constructs the tone of the documents and voices of the characters, such that we feel that they truly believe what they're talking about. Now the issue when one speaks of ideas about the nature of the universe is that the self that speaks is inextricably bound with what they're saying is the truth. Perhaps Borges said that it was a reflection on personal identity as we all wonder what stuff we are made of. But of course it's hard to see, hard to know if we are correct.
And speaking of the two character's relationship, I believe that John of Pannonia does not strictly represent the voice of the power of authority. He has a personal grudge against Aurelianus, who actually sounds like a decent person (and what more, John admits this and is rankled by it), and is also drawn to him. John attempts to expell Aurelianus (from ever being able to write again) by using a language of heresy that the Church would understand to harness the power of a worldly authority. So in this way he uses the Church to further a personal agenda.
I think I could say more about the story and wish I could be more correct and helpful, but I don't have the story for reference. Hope we can have a fruitful discussion, no one I know is interested in stories.
posted morning of June 29th, 2010 by Juvenal Karel
Oh dear, suddenly realized, I got the characters wrong. Please read "Aurelianus" where I said "John of Pannonia" and the other way round.
posted morning of June 29th, 2010 by Juvenal Karel
Well, it's correct to say that Aurelianus bears a grudge against John, and that neither of them is the voice of authority -- though Aurelianus certainly wishes he were in authority. But I think it's a stretch to call either of them a decent person when they are both working for the Church's courts, condemning independent thinkers to the stake.
posted morning of June 29th, 2010 by Jeremy
For your reference, you should be able to see the story at Google Books -- try this link.
posted morning of June 29th, 2010 by Jeremy
The 20 words of John of Pannonia are exactly the words you quote in your intro:
"Do you want to see what human eyes have never seen? Look at the moon. Do you want to hear what no ears have heard? Listen to the sparrow's cry. Do you want to touch that which no hands have touched? Touch the soil. Truly I tell you, God has not yet created the earth."
This are indeed more words than 20, but of course it would be written in Latin by Pannonia, and therefore would be only 20 words long. The reason that only these 20 words survived is because they were in the works of Aurelius. The work of Pannonia was destroyed because he was accused and convicted of heresy. So this is not a missing piece at all.
posted morning of October 11th, 2010 by Frank
Ah! Of course. Thanks very much, I don't know how I missed that. I guess I was looking for 20 English words, but of course you are correct that Pannonia was writing in Latin. (In the Spanish text of the story I'm pretty sure this quote is in Spanish; but perhaps Borges originally wrote it in Latin, who knows?) Maybe I will try and figure out how to translate this back into Latin...
posted morning of October 11th, 2010 by Jeremy
On rereading, I do not think this is correct. The line about "God has not yet created the earth" is presented as one of "The counsels of [the Heresiarchs]", counsels which are "far too conceited, too metaphorical to write down" in Aurelianus' refutation. He then thinks of the twenty words which aptly summarize the heresy, and realizes the next day that they come from Pannonia's Adversus Annulares which he had read years earlier, in the first pages of the story, but which Borges does not quote from at all, only paraphrases. So I'm back to thinking the twenty words are not present in the story.
posted morning of January 29th, 2011 by Jeremy
The twenty words are likely (part of) the following:
"John of Pannonia declared that neither are there two like souls and that the vilest sinner is as precious as the blood Jesus shed for him. One man’s act is worth more than the nine concentric heavens and imagining that this act can be lost and return again is a pompous frivolity. Time does not remake what we lose; eternity saves it for heaven and also for hell."
Consider that the mentioned twenty words came to Aurelianus' mind when he was struggling to concisely exemplify "the atrocious thesis that there are no two moments alike", and John's arguments certainly fit the bill. Either the assumed original in latin required far less words, or Aurelianus used just a fragment from the quote, or both.
posted afternoon of June 28th, 2017 by L. Damián
