I. and II. are opposites that stem from an identical material. III. is their synthesis as well as an opening into a quotational world. IV. is partly a consequence and partly an origin.
Having foolishly interpreted in the past J.L.Borges’ “Pierre Menard the Author of Don Quixote” as a clever post-modern example, I had to attempt something similar myself in order to experience its more serious weight, and to discard first-hand any ironical interpretation of both Borges’ story and my Opus 4 – note: irony, not lightness! I would like to highlight two similarities (taken from the story) and one difference among Menard-Borges and myself, chosen among a multitude of others:
1. «Two texts of differing value inspired Menard’s undertaking. One was that philological fragment (number 2005 in the Dresden edition) in which Novalis outlines the notion of total identification with a particular author.»
2. «Pierre Menard was not out to write another Don Quixote – which would have been easy – but Don Quixote itself. Needless to add, he never envisaged a mindless transcription of the original; it was not his intention to copy it. His ambition, an admirable one, was to produce a handful of pages that matched word for word and line for line those of Miguel de Cervantes.» (trans. N.T. di Giovanni)
The difference is that I have gone further than Menard’s mysterious reconstruction: Composing A.Scriabin’s 10th Sonata as IV. was as equally important as inventing its preceding trajectory.