Cover art by Zoé Gruni. Translated from Bangla by Kamrul Hasan.
I will start by quoting a statement by Octavio Paz, his words in a conversation about the duality of the writer’s ‘self’, essential to unfurl his own poetic self, in order to emphasize the point that if we realize the importance of his formulation, it will become easier to initiate our discussion. Before doing that, we need to acknowledge that many authors had been aware of the division and the difference between ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ for a long a time, and expressed that in many different ways- in ways that spread from authors to philosophers-but it was always tied to vagueness and obliquity.
When a writer takes refuge into pronouns in order to transcend from ‘Self’ to ‘Other’ it is not merely a meaningless exit or transmission of a whimsical mind: this truth has been brought to our attention by many authors and philosophers before. Wilhelm von Humboldt , for example, thinks, “this penchant for pronoun is embarked on not only in language but is deeply rooted in our existence.” According to him “man can never be satisfied by the small world restrained by the use of everyday language.” (Poet’s Name and Pronoun, Ranajit Guha, Dhansiri, September 2020, p. 25); and for that matter, in the case of artists and writers, “Expressing the other in the self is his nature.” (Ibid, p. 35). Because “In worldly dramas all ‘Self’ entities are staged in the disguise of symbol of the ‘Other’ (Ibid, p. 38).
French poet Arthur Rimbaud presented quite clearly the repercussions he deduced from the presence of multiple selves in what is generally considered the single identity of a person, thus, claiming the existence of dual consciousness:
“I is another. If the brass wakes the trumpet, it’s not its fault. That’s obvious to me: I witness the unfolding of my own thought: I watch it, I hear it: I make a stroke with the bow: the symphony begins in the depths, or springs with a bound onto the stage.
If the old imbeciles hadn’t discovered only the false significance of Self, we wouldn’t have to now sweep away those millions of skeletons which have been piling up the products of their one-eyed intellect since time immemorial, and claiming themselves to be their authors!” (Arthur Rimbaud to Paul Demeny in a letter from May 15th, 1871)
Octavio Paz, with his characteristic clarity, shows us this use of pronouns by authors or the appearance of this duality:
“Rimbaud criticizes the self through the other, but as I said, the other is another self, another I. We need to make a radical critique of subjectivity. In parts of Levi-Strauss, we find a total criticism of subjectivity; and this is the importance of a philosopher like Wittgenstein. In criticizing language, he criticized the self, the ego. He has shown that `I’ is only grammatical fiction.” (Octavio Paz: Homage to the Poet, Kosrof Chantikian, Kosmos, USA, 1980, p. 161)
Wittgenstein aside, there was a vaporized form of that ‘Other I’ among poets, particularly some poets of the last century, and even before that, including philosophers and thinkers. For example, we shall discover its expansion in Martin Heidegger in his search of the soul and its determination. Essentially this discovery of the entity while searching for the nature of language is very significant in philosophical terms.
Jorge Luis Borges in his ‘Book of Imaginary Beings’ included a chapter named ‘The Double’ in which he showed how the concept of double-nature or duality has appeared in philosophy, literature and the fables of various nations. In philosophy, manifestations of such idea were embedded long ago in the writings of Pythagoras and Plato. On the other hand, Borges drew a brief but informative picture for how the concept of duality was expressed in the literary production of Robert Luis Stevenson, Rossetti, Hawthorne, Dostoyevsky, Alfred De Musset, Henry James, Kleist, Chesterton, Lofcadio Hern or Allen Poe and Oscar Wilde. No doubt Borges had a strong fascination for the idea of duality and the result of such attraction was creative transformation of this duality into his own literature.
We shall observe how Borges artistically crafted the dual form of self in short stories, poems, and even in some of his essays. Borges’s translator, Norman Thomas De Giovanni, provided us some similar examples in a chapter of his book The Lesson of the Master. It is very much there in Borges’s short story ‘The South’ and ‘The Other’; it also exists in the poems ‘Emerson’ (“I have not lived. I want to be someone else.”) and ‘Conjectural Poem’ (“I, longed to be someone else”) in The Self and Other book of verses; in the poem ‘May 20, 1928’ (“He will smooth back his hair, adjust his tie,… and try to imagine the other man- the one on the mirror- performs the actions and that he, the double, repeats.”) from the book of verse In Praise of Darkness. Besides these examples, he gave indication of the duality of self in his other writings at different times. Sometimes Borges found that dual nature of the self while discussing the inseparable manifestation of life and work of other writers. In an article Borges wrote about Walt Whitman in 1947, he informed, “There are two Whitmans: ‘the friendly and eloquent savage’ of Leaves of Grass and the poor writer who invented him… The latter chaste, reserved and somewhat taciturn; the former, outgoing and orgiastic.” (Borges: A Reader, Jorge Luis Borges, edited by Emir Rodriguez Monegal and Alastair Read, published by E P Dalton,1981, p. 192). Twenty-two years later while translating Whitman again, in the Introduction Borges uncovered another form of that duality: “This creature is of dual nature: he is the modest journalist Walter Whitman, a resident of Long Island, whom some busy friends would wish good day while he walked along the footpath of Manhattan, and he is that other self who the former wished to become but couldn’t –a man of adventure, a man full of love and loving in nature, indolent and a traveler of America.”
“Esa criatura es de naturaleza biforme; es el modesto periodista Walter Whitman, oriundo de Long Island que algún amigo apresurado saludaría en las aceras Manhattan, y es, asi mismo, el otro que el primero quería ser y no fue, un hombre de aventura y de amor, indolente, amoroso, despreocupado, recorredor de America. “(Walt Whitman, Hojas de Hierba, Traducido por Jorge Luis Borges, Editorial Lumen, P-9)
Although in the above paragraph the dual nature of the self was depicted in scattered fashion, the intense and direct way this idea was portrayed in his short story ‘The Other’, in the parable ‘Borges and I’ and in the poem ‘The Watcher’ resulted in a very concise and complete form that is not found in his other writings.
Just as the entity/being divided into many different forms became more precisely and directly delineated through an engagement in sweet contradiction and complimentary roles in Borges’s writings, we shall find that this division and unification of the self was engaged with in some poems by Rabindranath with the same playfulness at the zenith of his production, and even towards the end of his life. In terms of their artistic philosophy and differences in time period, these two names cannot be uttered in same rhythm- any literature expert would agree to that. An opulence of variations can be found between these two authors, in many different aspects. Not only in artistic styles, but also in their expressions they are poles apart. Yet, as both get down from their respective different mountain summits, they end up joining each other in the same valley of realization. In a song composed in 1918 Rabindranath portrayed the two selves in the following manner
The one which floats away on the waves of time beneath the sky
I am looking at his face.
With dust, with water with flowers, with fruits
He is also floating with all of them.
That one is roaming outside, he dances everyday in joy and pain-
He makes the waves, swings on the waves himself-
Gets hurt in little scratch, scars shows up in mild injury-
I am looking at his face.
That I which passes days in joy and weeping putting rhythm in mridanga
The other I am singing the song.
He is like a motion picture I am like a silent poet
I am looking at his face.
This self of mine is not me, I reside inside myself
I do not float away with the stream of death,
Free I satisfied I, quiet I, enlightened I
I am looking at his face. (Geetibithika, 1918)
In another poem we shall also observe this interplay between these two ‘I’
He has taken my company from the beginning.
That old haggard of the past time
He is mingled with me being one
Today I am informing him
We shall be separated. (Poem No 22. Shesh Shaptak, 1935)
In the song that was quoted first and the part of the poem composed seventeen years later, we shall find the coexistence of two selves, as well as a desire to be separated in the second poem. We shall find a strange similarity between this duality of Rabindranath and the parable ‘Borges and I’ written many years later by Argentine poet, essayist, and prose writer Jorge Luis Borges. Before identifying the similarities and analyzing them, let us read together this parable by Borges:
“Borges and I
Whatever incidents happen, happen in the life of another person, another Borges. I walk along the streets of Buenos Aires, perhaps somethimes I stop for a while, I look at the arch of the entrance to the hallroom and at the grilled doors: get information about Borges through letters and I find him in the list of the professors or in some biographical anthologies. I love sand-clocks, maps, the printing style of the 18th century, the taste of coffee and the prose of Stevenson: the other one also likes these; but in such a charming way that it appears dramatic. It would be an exaggeration to say that our mutual relationship is confrontational; I live, I have to, so that the other Borges can write literature and this writing literature is the inspiration of my living. It is not difficult for me to admit that in the meanwhile he has written some valuable pages; but these pages cannot safeguard me, probably beacause whatever is good do does not belong to a single person, even not to him, rather it belongs to language and tradition. Otherwise, peril is my destained fate and some moments of my life might survive amidst those. Slowly I have surrendered everything to him, although I am fully aware of his obnoxious habit of exaggerating and making fiction. Spinoza used to think that all objects in all circumstances wish to become similar to its own self, stone wants to become stone forever, tiger wants to become tiger, I will live within Borges; not within myself. (I am the other person- if this is proven) Instead of some laborious guitar playing or instead of other things I find myself less inside the pages of his books. Many years back I tried to get rid of him and from the fables of the suburbs I escaped to the play of time and the game of eternity, but all these plays are part of Borges’s life and I have to think of something new. In this way my life is coming to an end, and I lose everything and everything goes into oblivion or becomes a possession of others.
Not sure, between us, who has written this page.”
Before indulging in detailed discussions on the two quotes taken from two authors, we shall attempt to understand the nature of their similarity through some incidents and through some of their writings.
Fifteen years after writing the parable ‘Borges and I’, Borges once more returned to the interplay of dual form of the self (soul) in his short story ‘The Other’. In this story, Borges is uniting with another Borges who is a teenager. He has depicted the contradiction evolving from the similarities and the differences of these two entities who like Janus are endowed with double faces. But the description is wrapped in such an entanglement of dream, reality and nostalgia that it swings like a pendulum. In a piece of writing created between ‘Borges and I’ and ‘The Other’, the poem ‘The Watcher’, Borges will allow the sweet sensation to once again scintillate. We shall glance at this poem at least once, so that a different example of the manifestation of another form of Borges’s dual nature will help us to keep our discussion relevant.
Light enters inside and I wake up; there he is.
He starts speaking revealing his name and identity, which is (of course) my own name.
I return to those days of enslavement which was spread over seven times in a decade.
He has burdened me with his nostalgic memories. The tidbits of everyday life, human reality he puts on my shoulder.
I am his old servant; he forces me to wash his two feet.
He waits for me in the mirror, in the Mahogany wood and in the glasses of shops’ showcases.
Several women had rejected him. I will surely be a part of his pain.
Now he is imposing me to write this poem that I dislike.
He compels me to accept the vague instruction of resolute Anglo-Saxon.
He has made me a blind devotee of dead soldiers, with whom a single sentence cannot be exchanged.
He seems to be on my side at the last step of the staircase.
He is there in every step of mine; he resides inside my voice.
I hate everything about him.
I am comfortable to learn that he does not see anything with his eyes.
I am in a circular labyrinth and the infinite wall continuously spreads.
Although they do not cheat each other, we both are liars.
We know each other very closely; we are two inseparable brothers.
You drink water from my pot and eat my food.
The door to suicide is wide open but the theologists tell
I shall live in the far distant shadow of another kingdom waiting for me.
(The Gold of the Tiger, 1972)
By looking at the individuality of nature and the differences in their style of writing, any reader will understand that there is very little chance of finding similarities between the two. The biggest difference between them is that of style. In the realm of aesthetic belief their differences may not be poles apart but they are also not in close union in any way. In Rabindranath – be it prose or poetry- there is a majestic-multicoloured enduring tendency to tell stories in detail and through expansion. Borges regards this trend with such animosity to the point that he is very comfortable denouncing the exaggerated and reckless styles of novels. In his short stories he is such a perfect and extraordinary narrator, characterized by artistic moderation to the point that any major writer of any language would be deemed incapable of achieving such heights. There are also great differences between the two writers in their political outlooks as well as in their respective appreciation of various writers.
When they met at Buenos Aires in 1924, they had some heated debates about the English writer Rudyard Kipling. Rabindranath was not a so-called nationalist, he was not a blind-folded opponent of British Rule in India, but yet he never supported the principles of gratifying England. In a powerful speech on British rule in India (a speech delivered in 1941, on his last birthday) he said that India had gained many things from Britain’s rule, for example Shakespeare’s drama, the poetry of Byron and, above all, the large-hearted magnanimity of 19th century British politics. In this last speech, (The Crisis of Civilization) he said that the tragedy is that whatever is best in their civilization- what upholds the glory of huamanity has not found any room in the British administration of his country. (Jagat Kutir, Amartya Sen, Ananda Publishers, July 2022, p. 22).
Despite the application of discriminatory principles by English rulers in India, Rabindranath had no dearth of infatuation with English literature. Among his favorite writers many were English but, from a political perspective, he never accepted the racial outlook of Rudyard Kipling. In contrast to this, Kipling’s literary composition was such a favourite for Borges that the political consideration became insignificant to him. Despite this difference- Borges and Rabindranath- were in identical standing in terms of their outlook on nationalism. Both were severe critics of nationalism. Borges made his position against nationalism clear several times in writings and interviews. Like Rabindranath, he believed: “Nationalism is the main affliction of our times.”(Twenty four Conversations with Borges, Roberto Alifano, Lascaux Pubishers, 1984, p.12).
In 1961 on the birth centenary of Rabindranath when Victoria Ocampo requested writings to be sent for the celebration, Borges selected Rabindranath’s book Nationalism for discussion. There is no doubt that the unity of Borges’ views with Rabindranath is the reason for choosing this book for discussion. And Borges had unconditionally supported Rabindranath’s viewpoint despite some oriental deviations of nationalism. In that meeting although the two had some confrontation on Kipling, they were united in their dislike of French poet Baudelaire. Borges had written about so many writers of the world, but he never wrote even a single essay on Baudelaire who is the symbol of modernism. Rabindranath also never wrote a single essay of this French poet.
In this context, another similarity between them is their interests in learning the German and the French languages. Rabindranath attempted to learn both these languages in his youth. Later, at a mature age, he tried to study them more systematically. “Rabindranath was learning German from a lady in Gazipur” (Debabrata Chakrabarty, Desh, 16 December 2022, p. 47) and he learnt this language at his own intiative and curiosity. “I also wanted to know German literature and, by reading Heine in translation, I thought I had caught a glimpse of the beauty there.” (Talks in China, English Writings of Tagore, Volume 2, p. 588)
In his youth, he translated a number of poems from these two languages, from their original versions, with the help of experts in German and French languages, including nine poems by German poet Heinrich Heine. He also translated six poems by Victor Hugo from French and one poem by Jean-Pierre Florian. Rabindranath could not, however, devote more time to achieve a better grasp these two languages. On the other hand, Borges’s command and mastery of these two languages was astounding. And like Rabindranath, he picked up both languages in his childhood.
In 1914, just before the start of World War I, Borges’s entire family traveled to Geneva seeking eye treatment for their father, but because of the outbreak of war they were forced to stay there until 1919. Borges was admitted to an educational institute in Geneva. During this time, he learned Latin, German and French. And the interesting thing is that while learning German and being influenced by philosopher Immanuel Kant, Borges started reading Heine’s poems. In addition, he read Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in the original German. But among the poets Heine became his first reading. And he got a touch of Victor Hugo in his adolescence, very much like what happened to Rabindranath. Borges in his autobiography had reached an identical experience.
“On my own, outside of school, I took up the study of German… So I got hold of a copy of Heine’s early poems, the Lyrisches Intermezzo, and a German-English dictionary. Little by little, owing to Heine’s simple vocabulary, I found I could do without the dictionary. Soon I had worked my way into the loveliness of the language.” – (The Aleph and Other Stories 1933-1969, Jorge Luis Borges, E P Dutton and Co, 1970, p. 215-216)
That means both of them had learnt the German language on their own initiative and Heine was a fine entry point for both of them, as both became enamoured of the beauty of the poet’s language.
Both writers were enamoured of the German poet Heine and mentioned they had read and loved his poems, and also quoted him in their writings. Upon returning from Geneva in the twenties, Borges continued translating from the German language, but rather than Heine’s poems he chose to translate those of German expressionist poets, particularly five poems of Wilhelm Klemm, four poems of Kurt Heynicke, two poems of August Stramm and one poem each of H. V. Stummer, Ernst Stadler, Johaannes R. Becher, Werner Hahn, Alfred Vagts and Lothar Schreyer. Around that time, he had also translated an article written by Pierre Albert-Birot and had written one or two articles in the French language.
This holds true even if their shared readings of literature and similarities of incoherent translations from these two European languages are not taken into account, and despite the differences in the make up of their psyche, at some junction of emotions both writers arrived to the same plain just randomly. Yet that randomness has a hidden logic and reality which sometimes appear in such an unfamiliar form that we call it exception. But in true terms that is also an unexpressed and finite form of habit. In this sense, what did not bloom and is finite in Rabindranath, what was spontaneous and bloomed in the case of Borges manifested in a literary ornament called paradox or contradiction. In many ways, though there may not be an abundance of paradoxes in Rabindranath’s writings, their number is not insignificant either, but in Borges their presence was a central tendency, hence this heaviness and opulence of paradoxes. Between the two we can observe this distinctive ornamental expression in their various writings. First, we shall try to bring a few examples from Rabindranath’s writings in the interest of understanding the unity of their tendency to our attention.
In this eternal life I have no other jobs
I only create a limit of this infinity.
Amidst countless bindings
I will taste the immensely pleasant liberty!
My desire will flash in the form of freedom.
The path has tied the spirals of freedom.
(Pother Badhon, Mohua)
You came in the form of binding to become my liberty-
(Geetbitan, p. 584)
‘The boundary of the limitless’- as a golden flame ignited in the collision of divergence. In this poem by ‘fascination’ the poet is implying a kind of bondage; but Rabindranath considered fascination a kind of liberation. In the next quote ‘liberty’ became the opposite of ‘In the form of bindings’ There are more paradoxes like this featuring the unity of opposites in Rabindranth’s writings, the paradoxes are found in some sentences of his prose as well. We shall not delve deeper in search of that meaning at this moment. We only wish to find the paradoxes for which Rabindranath had a kind of fascination, rather than how they ruled over the empire of Borges writings as a central force.
Borges’s infatuation with paradoxes was created by those Spanish, French and English writers who attempted to portray the mystery of this universe and human characters through this magical ornamentation. Andre Maurois in one of his writings on Borges commented, “He akin to Kafka, Poe, sometimes to Henry James and Wells, always to Valery by the abrupt projection of his paradoxes…”(Jorge Luis Borges, Labyrinths, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 9 )” Besides he made the paradoxical realizations found in Pascal, Giordano Bruno, Alain de Lille, Zeno of Elea, Francisco de Quevedo, Kafka or Shakespeare on the meander-like nature of Universe and human existence a part of his own nature. The Zeno’s paradox attracted him so much that he wrote several times about it, for example in the articles ‘Avatars of the tortoise’, ‘The paradox of Apollinaire’, ‘Kafka and his precursors’—in those articles he discussed paradoxes directly.
It is true that besides discussion of paradoxes, in Borges writings paradoxes have appeared as rhetorical devices and were also expressed as the total message in some of his short stories. There he has depicted the nature of apparently self contradictory charcteristics amidst the same character as paradoxes. As in various interviews, in his articles and short stories he maintained his preference for paradoxes. Let us remember his famous article ‘New refutation of time’, where he wrote:
“Time is the substance I am made of. Time is a river which sweeps me along, but I am the river; it is a tiger which destroys me, but I am the tiger; it is a fire which consumes me, but I am the fire.”
In his short stories paradoxes have appeared as a structure of the story, sometimes as a mutually contradictory thematic expression of the whole story. For example, in his story ‘Theme of the Traitor and Hero’ the character of Fergus Kilpatrick, which he created as a revolutionary, becomes a traitor to the revolution. In his epilogue and magical delineation Borges writes “the sentenced leader has signed the death sentence of himself”. “Fate has given him sentence and liberty at the same time.” That means the prey is the hunter. Similar paradoxes may be found in some of his other stories and characters.
Leaving paradoxes aside, we shall now focus on another characteristic and that is the idea of many within one or one within many. Not only in Borges’s essays and stories, but also in his poems (‘The Watcher’, The Gold of Tiger) and parables (‘From Someone to No One’, ‘Everything and Nothing’ and ‘Borges and I’) we see artistic arrangements of this idea. The duality or emptiness of being or the connection and exchange between the real and the unreal of the same being—these ideas probably came to Borges by way of Eastern and Western mysticism. A distant tinge of Shankaracharya’s philosophies (“Advaita” or “Mayavad”) and Buddhism of the 8th or 9th century India can be seen recurring in his stories and poems—such as in ‘From Someone to No One’ and ‘The Watcher’. Rabindranath is traditionally immersed in both trends. And we noted at the beginning of this essay how the division and unity of being works within these two writers. We shall look at some other examples.
Here is another quotation from Rabindranath:
The countless invisible vessels of leaves of my heart
Has opened offerings in many bunches.
Around me forever
I am the Tree, they are sunray thirsty foliage,
The team of devoted beggar.
We shall observe a parallel of this in a short writing of Borges, which may be termed as a parable.
“Across many many years, a man is filling the empty spaces with provinces, kingdoms, hills, mountains, bays, ships, islands, fishes, rooms, tools, stars, horses, and idols of people. Shortly before his death, he discovers that the labyrinth created by his tolerant lines upholds the image of his own complexion.”
(A Personal Anthology, Jorge Luis Borges, Jonathan Cape, London, 1967, P 203)
Despite the fact that the two writings were composed of different elements, both of them hold the concept of making the face of one through a multitude of faces and a reflection of faith.
The person who filled empty space with many different objects for many years before his death discovered that all the things together formed the complete figure of himself. Rabindranath, without delving into that multitude, uplifted a complete figure of the self by imagining ‘countless invisible vessels of leaves’ and the ‘foliage thirsty for sunlight’ of a large tree. Although the expressions of the two authors are different, they are the twins of an indivisible soul.
In the following line of Rabindranath, we shall find a similar kind of closeness:
Gaining life from my life
Wake up all countries. (Guru Govind, Kotha O Kahini, [Book of Verse, 1900])
In this line, the flower buds of universality unfurled by him is the manifestation of many within one or a complete figure of the self by the unification of many.
We started by determining a similarity between that song of GeetiBithika and Borges’s parable ‘Borges and I’. Although the division and the union between ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ is found in writings by both writers, it was not as all encompassing in Rabindranath as was the case in Borges.
“Borges fue siempre el otro Borges desdoblado en otro Borges, hasta el infinito.” (El arquero, la fleche y el blanco, Octavio Paz [ Borges y Mexico], p-312)
Rabindranath was not exactly an explorer of this infiniteness of duality. But we can suddenly find the presence of this concept in his poems and songs, and sometimes in his prose. That song is an example of this. The ‘I’ of Rabindranath is floating in the waves of time under the sky, and the ‘I’ is floating with many other things – with dust, water, flower and fruits.
On the other hand, what happened to Borges? Without being dramatic, Rabindranath in the first line communicated he is observing the other ‘I’. In a similar fashion Borges in his parable ‘Borges and I’ also says at the outset, “Whatever incidents happen, that happen in the life of another person, another Borges.” But who is saying this about the other Borges? In the next sentence we shall find the speaker ‘I’, and the other “I’. In his own language “I walk along the streets of Buenos Aires, perhaps sometimes I stop for a while, I look at the arch of the entrance to the hallroom and at the grilled doors: get letters from Borges and I find him in the list of the professors or in some biographical anthologies.” After that this “I” unfurls a list of things he likes, but if the other one also likes these: “but in such a charming way that appears dramatic. It would be an exaggeration to say that our mutual relationship is confrontational.” Rabindranath also creates a list of the activities of ‘I’ in the next stanza. For example
That one is roaming outside, he dances everyday in joy and pain-
He makes the waves, swings on the waves himself-
Gets hurt in little scratch, scars shows up in mild injury-
I am looking at his face.
Here, although the two ‘self’ or two ‘I’ are present, unlike Borges, Rabindranath does not create any contradiction, nor does he make any dramatic presentation, although he keeps us aware of the the differences between the ‘two’ through his description. In the last stanza he proclaims very clearly “This ‘I’ is not that ‘I’.” It is true that the drama and contradiction of the two ‘self’ and the contextual maze that Borges has created is much more attractive in terms of their poetic value. Along with it, history, tradition, time- all the signals of infiniteness unfurl in such a paradoxical disguise that it seems in Rabindranath’s language- “He is like a motion picture”. On the other hand, in Rabindranath, although the two ‘I’ appear in poetic form, his linguistic simplicity and direct observation will appear flat to us. In comparison Borges presents the two ‘self’ in more complex, curved lines. But the two ‘Self’ created in their two hands are ultimately cyclic- the dot of the first ‘I’ goes and joins the other ‘I’. Despite the differences in their artistic constructions, essentially, they were the twin children of the same thought.
কবির নাম ও সর্বনাম, রণজিৎ গুহ
Octavio Paz: Homage to the Poet, Kosrof Chantikian, Kosmos, USA, 1980, P-161
Book of imaginary being, Jorge Luis Borges
The Lesson of the Master, Norman Thomas Di Giovanni
The Self and Othre, Jorge Luis Borges
In Praise of Darkness, Jorge Luis Borges
Borges : A Reader, Jorge Luis Borges, Edited by Emir Rodriguez Monegal and Alastair Read
Hojas de Hierba, Walt Whitman, Trducido por Jorge Luis Borges
Twenty four Conversations with Borges, Roberto Alifano
গীতিবিথীকা, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
শেষ সপ্তক, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
The Gold of the Tiger, Jorge Luis Borges
জগত কুটির, অমর্ত্য সেন
English Writings of Tagore, (Volume 2), Rabindranath Tagore
The Aleph and Other Stories 1933-1969, Jorge Luis Borges
মানসী, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
নৈবেদ্য, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
মহুয়া, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
গীতবিতান, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
Labyrinths, Jorge Luis Borges
পত্রপুট, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
A Personal Anthology, Jorge Luis Borges
কথা ও কাহিনী, রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর
Borges y Mexico, Miguel Capistran
Razu Alauddin is a Bangladeshi poet, essayist, and translator. His poems and essays have been translated into English, Spanish, Italian, and Swedish. In 2019, his collection of Bangla poems came out in Ecuador as Secretamente he dibujado el mapa del deseo (Secretly have I Drawn the Map of Desire) in María Helena Barrera-Agarwal’s Spanish translation. Alauddin originally translates from Spanish and his translations include essays and stories by Jorge Luis Borges, interviews and autobiography of Borges, and poems by Georg Trakl, C.P. Cavafy, and Ted Hughes, among others. Currently, he oversees the editorial and opinion section at bdnews24.
Kamrul Hasan is a poet from Bangladesh who has written 15 books of poetry that includes 3 books of selected poems. Besides poetry, he writes short stories, articles, and translates literature from English to Bangla and vice versa.