Sorry if this comes twice; it did not seem to send. N

I think these are just examples of points of departure. [both come from
the conclusions of the articles if you wish to check them.] But both
strike me as ways of thinking that are not present in most of what we
read. I do not have any investment in either claim; I just find them
deeply interesting and unlike most Anglo-American discussions, though I
think Hugh MacDiarmid took a line much like that of Borges in his vision
of worldwide inclusion. I would love to hear reactions:

From "Jorges Luis Borges Rewrites Eliot" by Juan E. De Castro:

More than Eliot's Eurocentric and rather abstract literary order,
Borges's tradition is a 'library, where ideally everything is preserved
and where the system of preservation makes no distinction at all between
good books and bad' (Guillory 1995, 240). The library is one of the
central figures in Borges's writings; indeed, in 'Poem of the Gifts', he
claims "I imagined paradise as a library' (1996m 146). Borges explored
the notion of the 'total library'--a library that includes every
possible book--in his essay of the same name and, in nightmarish terms,
in his story, 'The Library of Babel'.

. . . 

Borges's conceptualization of tradition as a library implies a denial of
qualitative classification based on influence, content, place of origin,
language or putative quality. Moreover, he hints at the possibility of a
non-Eurocentric version of literary tradition that would include, but
not be limited to, the literary monuments of Europe. His denial of
chronology and his privileging of the act of reading in the constitution
of tradition is designed to empower writers from apparently marginal or
supposedly new countries. In this, as in his ability to combine Eutopean
cultural elements with local Argentine and non-Western elements, Borges
is indeed, as Aizenerg maintained, a 'postcolonial precursor', who is
'for postcolonial writers . . . a reference point beyond his general
preeminence in a European-North American repertoire of culture'.
Yet it is necessary to keep in mind that Borges's vision of tradition is
a modification--even radicalization--of ideas found in Eliot's
'Tradition and the Individual Talent'. Like Eliot, Borges is ultimately
concerned with reconciling an awareness of literary tradition with
innovation, in other words, of transforming the European and World
traditions from cultural dead weights into sources of literary
productivity and innovation. By using Eliot as the theoretical starting
point for conclusions that contradict the poet's Eurocentric vision of
tradition, Borges exemplifies the manner in which European texts can be
used against their grain. At the same time, the very fact that Borges's
critical innovations stem from the Anglo-American poet's influential
essay testifies to the richness of Eliot's critical writings.

or from "T. S. Eliot and La Nouvelle Revue Franšaise," by William Marx:

Eliot's assertion of classicism, then, made it difficult for his French
colleagues to understand his position. The writers of the NRF could not
reconcile the conservatism of Eliot's classicism with the radical
modernism of his poetry, which seemed by French standards to embody a
sort of anti-classicism. The idea that Eliot's modern poetry could
change the English tradition while supporting it seemed contradictory to
French critics, for whom rejection was requisite to progress.
Anglo-Saxon modernism issued from a supple, ever-changing tradition,
while French modernism rose up against classicism's limits. Like any
other French movement, it began as anti-classic, and was accepted as
part of the classics only when a new movement rose up to defy it. There
are two different modernisms because there are two different ways of
relating to the past, with rupture or with continuity: this was Eliot's
lesson from La Nouvelle Revue Franšaise.