Just in case anyone was wondering why I prefer one translation of the Borges
story over another, even though Borges is commonly thought to be so clear in
his prose as to be "transparent" in translation:
Here's some text for comparison. To get a feel for the differences,
it helps to read these two translations out loud.
Everything and Nothing
By Jorge Luis Borges
James E. Irby (in LABYRINTHS):
There was no one in him; behind his face (which even through the bad
paintings of those times resembles no other) and his words, which were
copious, fantastic and stormy, there was only a bit of coldness, a dream
dreamt by no one. At first he thought that all people were like him, but
the astonishment of a friend to whom he had begun to speak of this
emptiness showed him his error and made him feel always that an
individual should not differ in outward appearance. Once he thought that
in books he would find a cure for his ill and thus he learned the small
Latin and less Greek a contemporary would speak of; later he considered
that what he sought might well be found in an elemental rite of humanity,
and let himself be initiated by Anne Hathaway one long June afternoon....
Anthony Kerrigan (in A PERSONAL ANTHOLOGY):
There was no one in him; behind his face (even the poor paintings of the
epoch show it to be unlike any other) and his words (which were
copious, fantastic and agitated) there was only a bit of cold, a dream
not dreamed by anyone. At first he thought that everyone was like him. But
the dismay shown by a comrade to whom he mentioned this vacuity revealed
his error to him and made him realize forever that an individual should not
differ from the species. At one time it occurred to him that he might find
a remedy for his difficulty in books, and so he learned the "small
Latin and less Greek" of which a contemporary spoke. Later, he considered
he might find what he sought in carrying out one of the elemental rites
of humanity, and so he let himself be initiated by Anne Hathaway one long
afternoon in June....
--m