Infinite Polysemy
The narrator of The Library of Babel describes two contradictory consequences of his infinite library: First, he states that the possibility of someone finding one of the Vindications (books which explain and justify the life of each man) or even one of its "treacherous variations" is zero. Later, he states that the destruction of millions of books by a puritanical sect was inconsequential because there are always thousands of “imperfect facsimiles” of every book, “works which differ only in a letter or comma.”
Why does the narrator, or perhaps Borges, ignore the synonymity between an "imperfect facsimile" and a "treacherous variation"? A particular book thrown into an airshaft by a Purifier may have n number of imperfect facsimiles, but the odds of finding one of these are as small as the odds of finding an imperfect copy of one’s Vindication. It appears that he is characterizing the totality of the library in two contradictory ways in order to suit his purposes. But I believe I have found the solution to this puzzle. The library’s dimensions are astronomical, supermassive, on the scale of a galaxy, or even circular and infinite. However, the vastness of the library is not limited to its size and the number of its books, for when the narrator states: It is impossible to combine a random string letters which do no not mean something in one of the library’s languages, he is grossly understating the case. The library is total, and everything that is possible with language is represented on its shelves. Therefore, a random grouping of letters will have not one but x number of meanings, where x is the total number of possible languages that happen to include the grouping of letters as a word in their vocabulary. But this, or a similar inference, applies not only to a words, but entire books. That is, Book A made up of “random” letters will be coherent in x number of languages, in each of which the letters of the text correspond to words in a correct syntatical order for those languages. In the real world, the same letters can yield two disparate meanings in different languages (pied means foot in French and having two or more different colours in English). In the library, which contains every possible language, this real-world coincidence of one word and two meanings will involve entire texts and an indeterminate number of languages. Book A will yield an incalculable number of disparate meanings in an incalculable number of languages. Every book is infinitely polysemous. Every book has infinite possible meanings. The assertion that books lost to the Purifiers are unimportant is therefore correct, and not only because of the imperfect facsimiles, but because the information derivable from those books is contained in innumerable other books in innumerable languages, and perhaps even several times in one book in several languages. The second assertion, that it is impossible to find one’s own Vindication, is also correct, but causes confusion because it glosses over an astonishing corollary: It is impossible to find any book. Even if a librarian found a book declaring itself to be his Vindication, that reader could not be sure the readability of the text wasn’t a miraculous coincidence. A translation of Hamlet into Language Y may produce a text orthographically identical to what appears to be a Vindication in the reader’s language, making the “Vindication” as meaningful as the face of Christ on a burnt tortilla. The fact that the possibility of such orthographical coincidences cannot be eliminated ensures that the authenticity and provenance of every book (a matter of the utmost importance in the case of the Vindications) is forever in question. And this is the meaning behind narrator’s otherwise enigmatic question: “You who read me, are You sure of understanding my language?” |