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