J.Aisenberg: The problem [...] is
that Nabokov, by insisting on doing everything in layered subjective parts[...]
has set himself the near irressolvable problem[...] this means that in both
Shade and Kinbote the same subjectivity is at work correlating seemingly
differing projects--poem and commentary. Isn't this really why they seem like
they are the same person? Not because Nabokov intended them to be, but because
the practical problems of writing a novel in this way reveals his hand at work
in the ooze of both character's minds.
JM: The mistake
(present in my Everyman's Library edition) concerning "Triptych" was Shade's,
not Kinbote's!
Shade: the
point is that the three/ Chambers, then bound by you and her and me,/ Now form
a tryptich or a three-act play/ In which portrayed events
forever stay.
Kinbote: "He awoke
to find her standing with a comb in her hand before his — or rather, his
grandfather’s — cheval glass, a triptych of bottomless light, a
really fantastic mirror, signed with a diamond by its maker, Sudarg of
Bokay."
This means it must have been an editorial
(E.L's) oversight, not something intended by VN ( unless J.Aisenberg's involuntary indictment of Pale Fire is
in operation.)
I tried to compare my edition with another.
Unfortunately I only have with me Zimmer's "Fahles Feuer".
In Kinbote's commentary the word comes out as
"dreiteiligen Ankleidespiegel", whereas in Shade's poem it is "Triptychon" (ie:
with a correct spelling).
Traduttore, traditori? Where's truth, said jesting
Pilate?