"World Literature in a Poem: The Case of Herberto Helder" in Institutions of World Literature. Writing, Translation, Markets.

3 Wo ld Li e a u e in a Poem The Case o He be o Helde 1 Helena C. Buescu I is a guable ha , i wo ld li e a u e is also a mode o eading, as Da id Dam osch s a es, he e may be special cases in which he choice o wo ks o be ead and/o o be ansla ed has o be accoun ed o as a poe ic ges u e owa ds a plane a y li e a y awa eness. In such ins ances, he sense o li e a y es angemen is pa o he eading p ocess, and he p ojec o i s non- domes ica ion (pe haps a s onge way o d aw on Law ence Venu i’s no ion o o eigniza ion) is e y much a he cen e o he he meneu ical p ocess. In wha ollows I will be dealing wi h an in e es ing case o ansla ion (o some- hing akin o i ), om he poin o iew o a poe . I is no only ha i is a poe who ansla es poems by o he s. I is also, as we shall see, ha he ansla es hem as a poe , ha is, as pa o his own poe ic s ance. Wha is (and wha isn’ ) a li e a y ansla ion? Tha is he ques ion ha lies a he hea o his endea ou . As we shall see, i is also a case in which, h ough ansla ion, cul u al di e si y and p o enance a e ans o med in o a clea ly dis inguished wo k: ansla ing is a mode o eading, bu i is also a mode o shi ing socio- logical and aes he ic unc ions and p ocedu es. This is why we may be able o say ha wo ld li e a u e is no solely a mode o eading, bu a mode ha deals wi h he cons an in en ion o eading—by eshaping he cen e and he pe iphe ies o li e a y sys ems, and by hus p oposing e e -changing o ms o ac ually eading ex s ha seemed o ha e been al eady ead. No ha wo ld li e a u e and ansla ion do his in a o ally di e en way han o he app oaches; ye hey ce ainly ende explici he need o conside ing an ex a e i o ial app oach in he way one eads each and e e y ex , and he e o e accoun s o wha he ex does and how i comes o mean di e en hings in di e en ways. This app oach also b ings ano he consequence, namely ha wo ld li e a u e is, om my poin o iew, no concei able apa om a compa a is app oach. O cou se one knows ha , pa icula ly in he Uni ed S a es, he e has been a disciplina y need o dis in- guish be ween compa a i e and wo ld li e a u e (a leas since he 1950s)— especially linked wi h a mo e pedagogical (wo ld li e a u e) o a mo e heo e ical (compa a i e li e a u e) emphasis. Howe e , i is also ob ious ha he e e expanding app oaches wi hin he ield o li e a y s udies, om he second hal o he wen ie h cen u y onwa ds, make i incumben upon us o econside hese deba es in ou cu en ime and om ou cu en 54 Helena C. Buescu posi ions. S angely o no , he no ion o es angemen , wi h i s o malis pas and, as I a gue in his essay, i s e y in e es ing u u e, has esu aced in he discussions a ound ansla ables o un ansla ables. The issue migh no be an ei he /o ques ion, meaning ha i may be mo e in e es ing o conside hese e ms as complemen a y, a he han mu ually exclusi e. My main a gumen in his essay is ha he no ion o es angemen in oduces a mo e complex iew o he ela ions be ween compa a i e and wo ld li e a u e, as one ecognizes ha compa a i e li e a u e also deals wi h a ied ac o s o es angemen , and ha he e o e wha is ansla ed is, e y o en, pa adoxi- cally un ansla able. I is also my con en ion ha we may he e o e y o ind mo e complex cases whe e he play be ween wo ld and compa a i e li e a u e, as well as ha be ween he amilia and he es anged, become wo o he majo ac o s in he dynamics o eading. The case ha I deal wi h in his essay is one o hese complex cases. The essay p esen s an app oach o and a p ac ice o ansla ion ha no e e yone would immedia ely accep as ansla ion. I akes i s cue om he no ion o es angemen , as i a gues ha he subs an ial eason o his labou o ans- la ion, and he choices i mani es s, is p ecisely he ecogni ion o he di e si- ica ion o he li e a y wo ld, in bo h his o ical and geog aphical e ms. And i insis s upon he ac ha wha his poe does wi h his poe ic ansla ions belongs o a compa a i e app oach, as he pu s qui e di e en li e a y adi- ions in dialogue wi h he Po uguese one and ne e loses sigh o how hey clash, mix o do no mix, and change each o he . The e is no peace in hese ansla ions: hey a e he si e o con lic s ha a e ne e esol ed, no e en (o especially no ) when a ansla ion has supposedly been achie ed. In a sense, hen, he compa a i e app oach o a wo ld li e a u e scope pe ma- nen ly deals wi h es angemen s ha a e he e y basis o any eading we may do and o e e y wo k o a we may con on . This o cou se is also a way o esponding o he his o ical deba e ha oscilla es be ween an op imis ic iew o wo ld li e a u e—in he sense ha i migh be a p ojec o li e a u e o come—and he mo e pessimis ic iew ha sees in i he p obable loss o he “wo ld” in i s non-neu alized di e si y. We ha e di e en scena ios in which hese opposing iews ha e been he objec o discussion, and some s ill qui e ecen (I would jus like o men- ion he cases o Pascale Casano a and Gaya i Spi ak). My posi ion, which I e isi in he p esen essay, assumes ha he e is ac ually no way in which we would be able o each a inal desc ip ion o wo ld li e a u e—ei he because o he his o ically di e se an age poin s i subsumes, o because o he heo e ically di e se poin s o en y ha a e used in i s p ac ice and discussion, be hey sociological, he meneu ical, o h ough he his o y o ansla ion and, he e o e, compa a i e. I we iew wo ld li e a u e as an epis emologically engaged p ac ice, and he e o e a s uc u ally changeable one (compa a i e li e a u e has also augh us ha ), we may indeed accep ha Dam osch’s de ini ion o i as a mode o eading s ill s ands as a iable desc ip ion o how i wo ks. And i o his we s ill add, as Helgesson’s and Wo ld Li e a u e in a Poem 55 Ve meulen’s in oduc o y ema ks o he p esen olume poin ou , he com- plemen a y ques ions posed by Dam osch, on he “wha ” and “whe e” o wo ld li e a u e, we will ha e o accep ha pe haps wha wo ld li e a u e o e s is s ill ano he way o making clea ha li e a y s udies always deal wi h a ma e which is ne e comple ed, and e en less closed. They will always be “ oo human” o ha . I may be in e es ing o ead app oaches ha y o make “o de ” ou o such a con adic o y ma e , bu I doub ha his “o de ” will one day be able o posi i ely (and posi i is ically) desc ibe wha we do when we do compa a i e wo ld li e a u e. We mus also be p e- pa ed o such an es anged eading as his i we wan o na iga e be ween dis an and close eadings and be ween amilia and un amilia ex s and li e a y sys ems, as I do indeed belie e we mus . In 1966, he Po uguese poe He be o Helde (bo n 1930), a guably he mos impo an poe in he second hal o he wen ie h cen u y in Po ugal, began an in iguing expe imen wi h poe y w i en by o he s and wi h i s ela ion o his own poe y. In ha yea , he published O Bebedo noc u no (The Nigh D inka d), a collec ion o wha he called “ e sions,” ha is, a se ies o mos ly indi ec ansla ions coming om dispa a e geog aphical egions, his o ical pe iods, and cul u al a ilia ions. Twen y-one yea s a e his collec ion, he published As Magias (1987), p esen ed once mo e as “ e sions” o o he ex s and poems. And in 1997, he published h ee i les in h ee mon hs: Ouolo (Oc obe ), Poemas ame índios (Ame indian Poems; No embe ), and Doze nós numa co da (Twel e Kno s in a Rope; Decembe ). These h ee olumes a e no longe p esen ed as “ e sions.” Ins ead, Helde uses o each o hem he sub i le “Poemas mudados pa a Po uguês po He be o Helde ” (“Poems changed in o Po uguese by He be o Helde ”). Un il 1990, in his cons an e isions o his own poe y, he had also included he p e-exis ing “ e sions” in his comple e poems, s a ing ha in so doing, he “boldly da e(d) o u n i [ he poem] no only in o a Po uguese poem bu also in o a poem by [him]” (Helde , Poesia oda 209; my ansla ion). In he case o he 1997 olumes, he no ion o a “changed poem” is unde lined, wi h di e en conno a ions han he p e ious concep o “ e sions.” This is a he co e o his essay’s e lec ions. Is wo ld li e a u e abou ansla ions ha may no e en be ansla ions (a leas li e ally), as I will demons a e? How es anged mus a poem be o be ecognized as a poem ansla ed (o changed) in o ano he cul u e and language? As we shall see, he e a e no simple answe s o hese and ela ed ques ions. Le me begin by desc ibing in mo e de ail he s uc u e and he con en s o he i e olumes men ioned abo e. This is al eady an impo an poin o unde line, as i makes he deg ee o es angemen explici , and leads us o ecognize how dis an li e a y adi ions may be om he an age poin om which hey a e ead and, in his case, ansla ed and ewo ked. S anding ou o he e en casual eade is undoub edly he ex ao dina y ange and di e si y o cul u al sou ces om which hese ex s a e selec ed. The 1966 olume collec s ma e ials om Ancien Egyp , he Old Tes amen , Maya and 56 Helena C. Buescu Nahua l lo e, I eland, Sco land, Finland, Japan, Indochina, Indonesia, G eece, and Madagasca , oge he wi h Zen poems, A ab and Al-Andaluz poems, “Eskimo” and Ta a poems, Haikus, and “Red-Skin poems.” As magias, in u n, o e s poems om he Belgian poe Hen i Michaux, D. H. Law ence, Robe Duncan, Blaise Cend a s, and S ephen C ane, among o he s, lined up wi h na i e ma e ials om Cen al Asia, Equa o ial A ica, Sudan, Gabon, B i ish Columbia, India, Panama, Aus alia, Colombia, Ancien G eece, Mexico, and Mongolia. As o he 1997 ilogy, Ouolo collec s ex s om Mayan and Amazonian sou ces, as well as poe y by Zbigniew He be , Jean Coc eau, Emilio Villa, Ma ina Ts e aie a, and Malcom Low y. Poemas ame índios s a s ou wi h a long poem by E nes o Ca denal (he himsel wo king wi h se e al sou ces o six een h-cen u y Nahua l ex s, as well as he Flo en ine Codex) and goes on o ga he ex s culled om Az ec and Quichua cul u es, as well as ex s om an a ay o na i e No h and Sou h Ame ican sou ces. Finally, Doze nós numa co da seems o mo e away om he logic go e ning he p e ious olumes by p i ileging Wes e n sou ces: An onin A aud, Ca los Edmundo de O y, Hen i Michaux (whose poe y akes up almos wo- hi ds o he book), and a sho poem by He mann Hesse which closes he collec ion. In hese olumes, poems by ai ly canoni- cal wen ie h-cen u y Wes e n w i e s a e se side by side wi h anonymous ex s s emming om o ally p oduced and ansmi ed cul u es wo ldwide, co e ing “gen es” as di e se as iddles, hymns, songs, p aye s, incan a ions, exo cisms, my hical na a i es, and in oca ions, oo ed in highly i ualized con ex s anima ed by a belie in he magic and p opi ia o y powe o wo ds.2 As may well be unde s ood, one o he ges u es unde lined by he poe is he ac ha no na ional o e en egional bounda ies make sense in his con- cep o li e a u e: poe y is unde s ood as a ans e sal phenomenon which no ex e nal bounda y may con ain o de ine, no e en a language, a li e a- u e, o a na ionali y— he e is no men ion wha soe e o hese ca ego ies as being ele an o he choice and he p ac ice o ansla ed poems. He de is in ac qui e dis an om Helde ’s no ion o li e a u e, which he e o e appea s, a leas po en ially, as a plane a y phenomenon, oscilla ing be ween and com- bining a i al p ocess o in en i eness (ene geia) and he he i age o his o ical wo ks o a (e gon). One u he ques ion ela es o he concep o au ho - ship, which is also implici ly in oked o dissol e he idea ha he au ho i y o au ho s is o g ea e impo ance han ha o ex s hemsel es. This ex - cen ic p ac ice de ies ou basically au ho -cen ed li e a y sys em (a leas in he Wes , mainly since he eigh een h cen u y, as bo h Roland Ba hes and Michel Foucaul ha e unde lined); we may conside i a u he ins ance o es angemen in he ecep ion o an al eady p e iously es anged se o ex s. How do we cope wi h such a “mess”? We canno a oid such a ques ion— and he wo d “mess” is indeed a conscious choice, as i ela es o he i alis concep ion o poe y ha Helde explici ly endo ses. Finally, and al hough his is no my main a gumen he e, he concep o ansla ion, as well as ha o adap a ion, is also unde sc u iny. I , again acco ding o Dam osch, one Wo ld Li e a u e in a Poem 57 o he cha ac e is ics o wo ld li e a u e lies in he ac ha i is abou ex s ha gain in ansla ion, hen wha we also ha e in Helde ’s case is a mos con incing a gumen in suppo o his iew. The e a e also di e en kinds o gain in all his: he ac ha some un ansla ables a e objec s o change and ansla ion; he ac ha hey become pa o he li e a y capi al o ano he language and li e a y sys em(s); inally, he ac ha hey a e wi h- d awn om a ce ain con ex and “ iolen ly” placed in an al oge he di e - en one, as is he case o he published olumes by Helde . Thei meaning can ne e be he same again—and his becomes pa o hei es angemen oo. We mus howe e acknowledge ha his is a polemical iew o ansla ion, which boldly submi s no ions such as ideli y, p oximi y, and domes ica ion o ideas and p ac ices such as ans o ma ion and o eigniza ion. A way o eading becomes a s a emen abou poe y i sel — he poe ’s own poe y as well as he poe y o o he s. I am mainly conce ned he e wi h he no ions o “change” and o a “changed poem,” and wi h he ac ha poems no only a e subjec o change bu also seem o ac i ely in i e change. The ac o “changing” (in he e ymological sense o “mu a ion,” exp essed in he Po uguese wo d “mudado”) a wo k om one language o ano he and he ac o inco po a ing dissonan codes and con en ions in o a pe sonal poe ics gain, I hink, om being conside ed as speci ic cases o in e cul u al o anscul u al in e ex uali y—a speci ic mode, I would a gue, h ough which wo ld li e a u e may be conside ed and app ecia ed. In ac , om a ce ain poin o iew hese ac s also con ibu e o a di e en concep o wo ld li e a u e, in which bo h pe sonal and dis an poe ic choices a e able o collide ( a he han be sol ed, as we ha e seen). In eali y, I a gue ha hese ac s also s ess he awa eness ha wo ld li e a u e is as much abou wha a els ou side i s o iginal sys em o p oduc ion as i is abou wha a els om he ou side o he inside while main aining a bla an quali y o s angeness. I we ollow Ap e ’s lead, his in e io ized s angeness also becomes a way o making wha does no a el (ye ) a el in a di e en (and bla an ) way (Ap e ). I does no “ a el well”—bu his is also an in eg al pa o any p ocess o change and o any p ocess o ansla- ion. F om my poin o iew, he e o e, he no ion ha a poem is change- able, and ha one o he o ms i can ake is h ough an ac o ansla ion (o  some hing ela ed o i , as Helde ne e accep ed ha hese published ex s should be called “ ansla ions”) also add esses he p oblem o o iginali y, as i explici ly unde mines i . Helde is close ins ead o he “an h opophagic” a i ude ha Oswald de And ade, he B azilian mode nis , p oclaimed in he “An h opophagic Mani es o” in 1928: Only an h opophagy uni es us. Socially. Economically. Philosophically. The unique law o he wo ld. Masked exp ession o all indi idualisms, o all collec i isms. O all eligions. O all peace ea ies. Tupi, o no Tupi, ha is he ques ion. 58 Helena C. Buescu Agains all ca echiza ions. And agains he mo he o he G acchi. I am only in e es ed in wha is no mine. Law o human. Law o he an h opophagus. … OSWALD DE ANDRADE In Pi a ininga. Yea 374 o he Swallowing o Bishop Sa dinha. (And ade 1)3 In ac , Helde himsel alks abou his own poe ic ac i i y as a case o ex ual “an h opophagy” (he also published a book wi h his elling i le), in which no only he mo e canonical adi ions a e assimila ed ( he Bible, Camões, he epic poe , and o cou se Fe nando Pessoa, whose oeu e esona es on many le els wi h He be o Helde ’s) bu also he mo e dis an ones a e con- on ed and “ea en up” by he poe . The ac emains ha Helde seems o p i ilege, in his choice o o he ex s, wha we migh call non- adi ions, a leas inso a as Po uguese and Wes e n poe y in gene al a e conce ned. Wha I mean by his is ha he clea ly ies o look beyond “expec ed” ex s, au ho s, and na ional li e a u es, and ha in so doing he is also add essing wha has been silenced—wha p ecisely has no a elled. Ye , his choice is he e o e also abou he p oposal o a adically di e en and changeable canon, which migh wo k as a backg ound noise and p e en he unawa e- ness o di e en cul u es, li e a u es, and adi ions, as well as in i e hei collision, expec ed o no . These ex s p oduce a noise, wi hin Helde ian poe ics, ha he biblical o Camonean in e ex uali y alone would no be able o gene a e. They a e dissonan . Re u ning o my opening ema ks, I a gue ha wo ld li e a u e is pe haps mainly cons i u ed by he awa eness and he p ac ice o dissonance and non-con o mi y as hese a e played ou wi hin a gi en li e a y sys em. Le us ead, in his ligh , he way He be o Helde highligh s his non-con o mi y himsel , in an in oduc o y no e o his O bebedo noc u no: I ha e some imes imagined he ac oba ic and cen i ugal li e o he polyglo . I suppose his daily li e o be ib an wi h an unceasing mo e- men o displacemen s, ansmu a ions, exchanges, and exhila a ing hun s o equi alences unde he sign o a ini y. He li es o sus- pended signi ica ions and a ascina ion wi h sounds ha con e ge and di e ge—and he e is no doub a mu e despe a ion in him, o in he disjunc ion o languages he sea ches o an imp obable uni y. By mul- iplying he ope a ions ha a ou uni y, he walks adian ly owa ds dispe sion. He decen alizes himsel . He exis s in a s a e o Babel … As o mysel , I don’ know languages. This is o my ad an age. I allows me o ende poe y om Ancien Egyp in o Po uguese wi hou knowing he language. I ake he Song o Songs in English o F ench as i i we e an English o F ench poem, and boldly da e o Wo ld Li e a u e in a Poem 59 u n i no only in o a Po uguese poem bu also in o a poem by me. An indi ec e sion, someone will say. Pe sonal ec ea ion o idle dile - an ism, someone else will say. I say no hing. I I we e o say any hing, I would say pleasu e. My pleasu e is his: wande ing aimlessly, eme g- ing h ough sudden lo e, p ojec i e. I ha e no igh o claim ha he ex s in his book a e ansla ions. I would say hey a e swi , labo ious explosions … Someone asks: wha abou ideli y? I don’ eel un ai h ul. Wha I’m ying o do is o build he Po uguese poem in une wi h he emo ional, men al, and linguis ic meaning which I s eal hily go when I ead i in English, F ench, I alian, o Spanish. I is an oddly pe sonal no ion o ideli y, I know, bu hen all ideli y is pe sonal. (Poesia oda 209–10; my ansla ion) This idea o poe y is he e o e no abou s aigh o wa d simila i ies o e en equi alences, bu abou dissonances and hei ou come. This is why He be o Helde e e s o hese changed poems as “swi , labo ious explo- sions” (Poesia oda 210). And he adds, in he olume Ouolo , ega ding a poem by he Caxinauá Indians: We a e acing a powe ully my hical, magical, ly ical dic ion, which ansg esses in e e y way he no m o he Po uguese wo d. This dis- u bance i sel immedia ely u ns in o poe ic subs ance and ac ion … The decen ing s uc u e be ween he wo languages—cap u ed as poe ic legi imacy—becomes an ins an aneous exp essi e o ce in Po - uguese, an un idy, w ong, libe a ed, egene a e, ec ea ed Po uguese. The ac o speaking becomes anima ed wi h a jubilan ma e ial ene gy. I is o ally new. (44; my ansla ion) The wo d “mess,” which I p e iously used, may now appea unde i s ull ligh : poe y and li e a u e a e “messy” ma e s o He be o Helde . They canno be cons ained in one gi en sys em. Ins ead, hey de ange (and ea ange) i con inuously, o ins ance, by means o ansla ion. And wha he calls “poe ic legi imacy” depends on he ac ha one is able o cap u e he “decen ing s uc u e” ha happens be ween wo di e en languages, cul u es, and li e a u es. The ques ion is he e o e no one o me ely includ- ing o excluding ex s, au ho s, o ins i u ions—ins ead, he e a e always a numbe o mixed p ocedu es h ough which li e a u e p ecisely escapes he ei he /o logic o inclusion and exclusion. I is no ha d o unde s and how hese p inciples ela e o an idea o wo ld li e a u e ha does no shape i sel a ound a s ic “comme ce” o ex s. And i is no ha d o unde s and ha wha we ha e he e is an idea o poe y able o b ing in o i sel and in o i s adi ion ha which Helde will call, u he down, he “happy mis- ake” (45). In his sense, wha he poe p oposes is also a di e en concep o adi ion, ans e sal o di e en his o ical momen s and geog aphical 60 Helena C. Buescu con ex s, shi ing wi hin hem in a po en ially chao ic mo emen , pa ially go e ned by chance (o wha academics e e o as a e y eal se endipi y). Fo ins ance, when he poe publishes Emilio Villa’s ex , he acknowledges ha i is a li e al ep oduc ion o wha Villa has himsel w i en. Bu he also desc ibes how he came ac oss ha poem by me e chance, and his chance is pa o he poe ic agency as he concei es i . Bu o cou se we al eady knew, since Bo ges’s Pie e Mena d, ha a li e ally ep oduced ex is ne e a li e - ally ep oduced ex . Li e a u e (and he e o e wo ld li e a u e) li es ou o his pa adox. Th ough his appa en ly diso de ed and un idy p ocess, he e o e, he poem is concei ed o as able o in eg a e a pe sonal poe ics in he exac measu e ha i also mani es s i sel as o he , somehow combining he ension be ween domes ica ion and o eigniza ion ha Law ence Venu i desc ibed conce ning he ac o ansla ion. In a sense, i is a o eign poem in i s pe sonal o e en domes ic o m, concei ed as an “explosion” o he un amilia in he con ex o a pe sonal oeu e and ajec o y. He be o Helde plays wi h he no ions o con igui y and discon inui y, as he g oups oge he and gi es an o de o wha s ill appea s as diso de ed. In As mag- ias, o ins ance, S ephen C ane’s “Hea ” is p eceded by a chan used in he cannibalis ic ce emonies o a B i ish Columbian ibe and succeeded by an in oca ion o p e en snake bi es om A ican Pygmies; we ha e o ead C ane in such a con ex , and his ce ainly changes ou eading o C ane’s poem, as i con e sely changes he chan o he B i ish Columbian ibe. Ano he in iguing aspec , pa icula ly in he Po uguese and Lusophone con ex s, is ha he A ican languages ha he ansla es om a e no he local languages o he A ican Lusophone coun ies—as hough Helde was delibe a ely ejec ing ou mos immedia e and ob ious choices. A simila si ua ion is indica ed by he i le Ouolo ( he name o a language spoken in he egion o Senegal, quo ed by Michaux), opening a olume in which no A ican o al p e-colonial ex appea s. Pe haps i jus signals he ollowing olumes? The e is no way o knowing. The poe pu s oge he agmen s om ex emely di e se wo ks, com- ing om di e en li e a u es and cul u es, as he jux aposes high and low cul u e, e udi e sou ces and popula ones. In so doing, He be o Helde subsc ibes o an idea o wo ld poe y akin o his idea o pe sonal poe y: he publishes “his own” poe y and “his own” books (by now we know ha we ha e o use quo a ion ma ks o hese exp essions) nex o hese olumes, and in a way, e en when, a e 1990, he excludes hese olumes om his “poesia oda,” he u ns hem in o his own. Indeed, le me also poin ou ha He be o Helde is engaged in a simila p ocess as a as his own poe y is conce ned. He in eg a es, elimina es, ew i es, pu s in a di e en o de , in a cou se o ac ion o which his me apho o “con inuous poem” (“poema con ínuo”) is used, as ye ano he name o he “comple e poems” ha a e ne e eally comple e. The image o cannibalism again comes o mind—and i may be wo h o ecall ha Jean Klucinkas and Wal e Mose use ha Wo ld Li e a u e in a Poem 61 p ecise image o e e o he p ocess o “cul u al ecycling” (Klucinkas and Mose ). The case o Helde is, om his poin o iew, ex emely signi ican , bo h in his pe sonal poe y and in his poe y-by-o he s. And i we ake in o accoun ha Po uguese poe y, in he wen ie h cen u y, is haun ed by he poe y-by-o he s ha Fe nando Pessoa coined as he e onymia, an in e es - ing way o look a hese changed poems by He be o Helde migh be o conside hem as a esponse (wi h a engeance) o Pessoan he e onymia. Helde also aces he con lic s be ween languages and be ween di e en adi ions o which Pessoa ound an answe h ough his mul iple he e o- nyms. Helde inds a di e en answe o a simila p oblem. Fo him, he e is no need o c ea e new oices and new poe s, ha is, new he e onyms. Poe y is always abou such messy oices coming in o collision wi h one’s own, and his makes i always a new oice, changes i . One las ques ion would make me unde line he way his e eals and pe - o ms a speci ic awa eness o li e a y his o y. The o ui ous e en ( he chance) ha seems o be pa o he whole p ocess does no e ase he his o ici y o he ex s ha a e changed o he al e i y o he cul u es and li e a u es ha hey ep esen o signal. On he con a y, his his o ici y becomes mo e com- plex and mul ilaye ed: hese ex s do gain in ansla ion, in his o ical e ms oo. His o y is also made om hese ac s, encoun e s as well as igno ance, con e sa ions as well as silences. Poe y is mainly abou he non- con o mi y o his o ical awa eness and abou anach onisms (one o he ulles ways o being his o ical, om my poin o iew). He be o Helde ’s amily o poe s is no he cohe en , simul aneous adi ion o T. S. Elio ’s e lec ion; in ac , he belongs o a ious as and con adic o y amilies o poe s, and no e o wha soe e o eaching a syn hesis be ween hem is made. They s and ou as di e en amilies, be ween which clash and dissonance a e pe haps mo e impo an han consonance and equanimi y. The idea o poe y ha unde lies his choice implies he e o e an ongoing con e sa ion be ween di e ences in ime, space, and cul u e, which Helde also ecognizes in his an hology o con empo a y Po uguese poe y (1985), when he e e s o i as “Vozes comunican es” (communica ing oices), a wo d play on “ asos comunican es” (communica ing essels) (Edoi lelia dou a). The me apho o hese “ ozes comunican es” applies o wha e e poe y he e is, independen ly om na ional o egional o his o ical disso- nances. The poe ’s ole, he e o e, is o “change” some hing in o some hing else. Bu is no he alchemical adi ion in ima ely connec ed wi h he sea ch o he philosophe ’s s one? In He be o Helde ’s con ex , poe y is a leas one o he shapes he philosophe ’s s one may ake. And some imes poems a e e en changed wi hou being changed a all: a Comanche ansc ip is me ely ansli e a ed, bu his s ill changes a poem in o Po uguese. Djá i dju nibá u i dju nibá i dju nibá u djá i dju nibá i ná ê nê ná