Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WritingtheMargin:RabbiNachmanofBraslav,JorgeLuisBorges
andtheQuestionofJewishWriting
YitzhakLewis
Submittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe
requirementsforthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy
intheGraduateSchoolofArtsandSciences
COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY
2016
©2016
YitzhakLewis
Allrightsreserved
ABSTRACT
WritingtheMargin:RabbiNachmanofBraslav,JorgeLuisBorges
andtheQuestionofJewishWriting
YitzhakLewis
The present project draws a comparison between the literature and thought of Hasidic Rabbi
Nachman of Braslav (1772–1810) and Argentine writer and public intellectual Jorge Luis Borges
(1899–1986). It is organized around two components of their writing—a discursive self-
positioning at “the edge” of tradition and a “cabbalistic” stylization of their narratives. The
dissertation contextualizes these components within late eighteenth century Enlightenment
ideology and emancipation policies, and mid-twentieth century political ideologies of Nazism
and Fascism, respectively. The dissertation is bookended by a close comparative reading of their
stories. It finds that each in his moment is greatly implicated in questions of resituating Jews and
Judaism within broader society, and argues that the effort to aesthetically represent the changing
social location of Jews is linked to their understanding of their respective literary projects more
broadly. Finally, the study illuminates their shared conceptualization of modern Judaism as a
literary model. The dissertation’s broader intervention in the filed of early modern and modern
literature relates to the dynamic of rupture and continuity that is so central to categorizations of
modern writing. It demonstrates that the fault lines of the rupture from tradition, vis-à-vis which
modern literature has been constructed, was already present—poetically and discursively—in the
“tradition” from which it purportedly departs. By combining the study of diverse geographies,
histories, languages, cultures and genres, the present study articulates a comparative frame that
challenges conventional categorizations of modern writing.
i
TableofContents
Introduction 1
SectionOne:CabbalisticStories 14
Chapter1:TalestheWorldTells 28
MissingtheEnding 32
APermanentBeginning 43
PoeticsofIntransitivity 50
Chapter2:AGameofInheritance 64
MetaphysicalTropes 72
AVindicationoftheAuthor 80
WritingWithintheGap 91
SectionOne:Conclusion 104
SectionTwo:TheTroublewithTradition 106
Chapter3:Locating“theJudaic”inBorges 114
Tradition:TheHistoricalSense 115
WhatisaMargin? 136
TheIntellectual 151
Chapter4:LocatingRabbiNachman 156
TheOrganizationoftheJews 162
WasRabbiNachmanaJewishIntellectual? 171
TheTopographyoftheQuestion 182
Antiphilosophy 196
SectionTwo:Conclusion 205
ii
SectionThree:ANarratologyoftheMargin 209
Chapter5:HistoriaUniversal 214
TemporalThresholds 224
TheAppearanceofaSecret 237
AttheSecret’sThreshold 245
Afterword 255
InConclusion:TheQuestionofJewishWriting 258
Bibliography 261
iii
Acknowledgements
Sittingbeforethecommitteeformydissertationdefense,Ihadthewonderfulrealization
thatallthemembersonthecommitteehadbeenmyteachersandadvisorsfrommyvery
firstyearingraduateschoolatColumbia.Iamfortunatetocallthemmymentors.Itismy
privilegetothankDanMiron,GilAnidjar,GracielaMontaldo,EdnaAizenbergandSudipta
Kavirajfortheirpersistentsupportandgenerousadvice—foraccompanyingthisproject
fromitsveryinception,throughitsmosttenuousmomentstoitsconclusion.
Ihavelearnedmuchfromallthewonderfulstudentsithasbeenmypleasuretoworkwith
overthepastyearsinNewYork.Ithankthemfordiscussions,questions,ideasand
intellectualcuriositythat(whethertheyknowitornot)helpedmeworkthroughmanyof
thequestionsinthisproject.
Overthecourseofresearchingthisdissertation,Ispentextendedperiodsoftimein
JerusalemandBuenosAires.TothestaffoftheGershomScholemArchiveattheNational
LibraryofIsrael,mygratitudeandfriendship.Tothestaffoftheresearcher’sreference
deskattheBibliotecaNacionalArgentina,thefacultyoftheSeminarioRabbinico
Latinoamericano,thestaffoftheFundaciónInternacionalJorgeLuisBorges,thearchivists
oftheBibliotecaPrebisch,andthefriendsImadethroughtheIWOliterarymeetings,my
deepestthanks.
iv
Therehavebeenmanycolleaguesandfriendswhosethoughtfulcommentsandgenerous
energyinreadinganddiscussingdraftsofthisworkhavebeeninvaluableinmywork.Iam
gratefulortheircomraderyandengagement.MyfriendsandcolleaguesattheColumbia
UniversityJewishandIsraelStudiesGraduateStudentAssociation,myfellowstudentsat
theCardozoLawSchoolGraduateStudentFellowshipinJewishLawandContemporary
Civilization,andcolleaguesandteachersattheVanLeerInstituteinJerusalem.Tothe
DepartmentofMiddleEastern,SouthAsianandAfricanStudiesandtheInstituteforIsrael
andJewishStudiesatColumbia,mydeepestgratitudeforalltheirmentalandmaterial
support,forobligingmyambitionsandsupportingmymotivations.
v
Tomyfamily
fortheirenduranceandsupport,
whosefirmdemandsforbalancekeepmebothsaneandfocused,
mythanksandlove.
1
Introduction
Ithasbeenestablishedthatallworksarethecreationofoneauthor,
whoisatemporalandanonymous.Thecriticsofteninventauthors:they
selecttwodissimilarworks—theTaoTeChingandthe1001Nights,
say—attributethemtothesamewriterandthendeterminemost
scrupulouslythepsychologyofthisinterestinghommedelettres.1
RabbiNachmanofBraslavandJorgeLuisBorgeshavebeenreceivedasentirelyexceptional
writers,withintheliteraryandculturalcontextsfromwhichtheyemergedrespectively.As
partofconstructingthisreception,theyarealsolargelytreatedasexceptionstothe
definitionsofliteratureoperativewithintherespectivecontextsoftheirreading.Thatis,
theyoccupyadualrelationtoconceptionsofwhatitmeanstobea“modernwriter,”to
write“modernliterature.”Theyaretheexception,andtheyprovetherule.Acentraltheme
throughwhichIbringthemtogetherinthisstudyisthequestionofmodernwriting.The
firststepinintroducingthejuxtapositionofthesetwofigureswillbetheconstellationof
exceptionsandexclusionsthatmarksthecriticalreceptionofboth.
Tofollowtheirleadonthequestionofmodernwriting,Idrawattentiontothewaysthey
signalthiscategoryintheirownwriting,andthemselvesasmarginaltoit—“writingthe
margin,”asIhaveputthisquestioninthetitle.Thus,thesecondstepinintroducingtheir
juxtapositionistonotetheirownparticipationinthis“exceptional”reception.Indeed,their1JorgeLuisBorges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings(NewYork:NewDirectionsPub.Corp.,1964),28.
2
respectiveself-presentationasexceptionsdoesmuchtoperpetuatecriticalattitudesthat
takethemupasexceptionstothecategoriesofliteratureandwritingwithinwhichthey
operate.Inadditiontodiscursivelypresentingthemselvesassuch,theirwritingcertainly
challengesliteraryconventionstothepointofsubvertingtheverycategoriesofliterature,
withinwhichtheseconventionsprevail.Thissubversion,inturn,issubsumedundera
criticalreceptionthatconstructsthemasexceptions.Theexceptionparticipatesin
articulatingtherulethatdefinesitasanexception.
Thepresentstudyhighlightstwokeymomentsinthisdynamicofreceptionandexception
asitpertainstoR.NachmanandBorges,onepoeticandonediscursive.Inboth,the
concordancebetweenthesewriters’self-presentationandtheirappreciationby
subsequentreadersisthestartingpointforadiscussionofthisdynamic,anditsroleinthe
constructionoftheruleof“modernwriting.”InbothmomentsIhaveselected,thedynamic
isnotmerelystructural.R.NachmanandBorgesnotonlysharepoeticanddiscursive
elementswiththeirrespectivereception,buttheysharetheseelementswitheachotheras
well.
Thefirsttwosectionsofthestudydealwiththesetwokeymoments.Individualchapters
withinthemofferseparatediscussionsofR.NachmanandBorges.Thusdiscretechapters
ontheirparticularwritingandreceptioncometogethertoarticulateabroaderproblematic
of“modernwriting.”Thefirstpointofjuxtapositionispoetic,andaddressesashared
categoryintheirdistinctarticulationsasexceptions,thatofwriting“cabbalisticstories.”
Thesecondpointofjuxtapositionisdiscursive,andreadscentraltextsoftheirpresentation
3
(andself-presentation)asexceptions,inwhichtheyarelocated“attheedge.”Through
thesetwopoints,Ihighlighttheirexceptionintermsofitsdiscursiveconstructionand
poeticstylization.Lastly,inthefinalsection,Icomparativelyreadthenarrativeproduction
ofsuchanexception,assuchanexception,inastorybyeach.
Aprimaryfindingofthisstudy,onethatemergesthroughoutthejuxtapositionofthesetwo
writers,relatestothecentralroleof“theJudaic,”asareferencepointfortheirthought
aboutwritingandliteratureintheirrespectivecontexts.TheJudaiccomestolightinterms
ofashareddiscourse,poeticsandnarratologythatR.NachmanandBorgesarticulate
throughtheirpersistentreferencetoit.Inaddition,andinkeepingwiththedynamicof
reception-exceptionoutlinedabove,theJudaicisalsoanimportantprisminthereception
oftheirwork.Recognizing,analyzingandquestioningtheirpersistentreferencetothe
Judaicarecentralframesforthereceptionofboth.ThepervasiveroleoftheJudaic—
poeticallyanddiscursively,intheprocessoftheirwriting,itsreceptionanditssubsequent
exception—pointstoabroaderquestionIhavealreadysignaledinthetitle.Inthe
juxtapositionofthesewriters,persistentlyreverberatingwithinthequestionof“modern
writing”isthequestionof“Jewishwriting.”
AtfirstIhadconsideredhimtobeassingularasthephoenixofrhetoricalpraise2
TheexceptionofR.NachmanandBorgesfromtheliteraryandculturalcontextsinwhich
theyemergedhasbeenarticulatedinmanyways.Inthestudyof“Hasidicliterature,”R.
2Ibid.,190.
4
Nachman’stalesareexceptedfromcollectionsandanthologiesofHassidicstories,because
theydon’tmeetthecriteriaofthisgenre.ThusNigalhasnomentionofR.Nachmaninhis
LexiconoftheHasidicStory,whileBuberdevotesavolumeexclusivelytoR.Nachman’stales,
separatefromhisfour-volumecollectionofTalesoftheHasidim.3InthestudyofJewish
intellectualhistory,R.Nachmanisexceptionalaswell.YehudaLiebesseeshimasthe
innovatorofnon-innovation,4whileSimonDubnowstatesthat:
AllthetalesofR.Nachmanare,inmyopinion,wordsofhallucinationoutof
thereligiousfeverofamansickinbodyandspirit,andfornaughthavethe
newresearchersbotheredtofollowthepathofBraslavHasidimandseekan
inklingofsenseinthispileofnonsense.5
Inthestudyof“modernJewishliterature,”ArnoldBandcannotcommittostatingR.
Nachman’swritingis“modern”literature,6DavidRoskiesseeshimastheultimaterebel
who“rippedoutalltheseamsandstartedover,”7whilestillothersseehimasa“forerunner”
ofthecategoryofliteraturebeingstudied.8InthefieldofMysticism,GershomScholem,in
hiscomprehensiveprojectonJewishMysticism,neverdealswiththeman,forwhom
MartinBuberreservesthetitleof“thelastJewishMystic.”9
3See:GedalyahNigal,LeksikonHa-SipurHa-Hasidi(Yerushalayim:ha-Mekhonle-hekerha-sifrutha-hasidit,2005).And:MartinBuber,TalesoftheHasidim:TheEarlyMasters(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1947);TheTalesofRabbiNachman(AtlanticHighlands,NJ:HumanitiesPressInternational,1988).4See:YehudaLiebes,"TheNoveltyofRabbiNahmanofBratslav,"Daat:AJournalofJewishPhilosophy&Kabbalah,no.45(2000).5SimonDubnow,ToldotHa-Hasidut,3vols.(Tel-Aviv:Devir,1944),307.Mytranslation—YL6ArnoldJ.Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales(NewYork:PaulistPress,1978).7See:DavidG.Roskies,ABridgeofLonging:TheLostArtofYiddishStorytelling(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1995),Ch.2.8HowardSchwartz,"RabbiNachmanofBratslav:ForerunnerofModernJewishLiterature,"Judaism31,no.2(1982).9See:GershomGerhardScholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1995),Lecture9.;Buber,TheTalesofRabbiNachman,Intro.
5
AsimilarexemptionexistsinthestudyofBorges,inplacinghiswritingswithin
conventionaldisciplinaryboundariesandcategories.WhileinthestudyofR.Nachmanhis
exceptionalcharacterisoftenexpressedintermsofthedifficultyofreconcilingreligionand
literature,forBorgesthechallengeisreconcilingtherelationbetweenanArgentinewriter
andaEuropeanwriter.“Borgesisatypicalcolonialwriter[…]BorgesisnotaEuropean
writer:therearenoEuropeanwriterslikeBorges,”statesFernándezRetamar.10Though
othercriticsarenotasdecidedasRetamar,thequestionofBorges’positionvis-à-vis
categoriesofmodern,EuropeanorWesternliteratureresultsinhisexceptionfrom
mainstreamdiscussionsofmodernityandEuropeanliterature.ThusEdwardSaidsees
BorgesasanexceptiontothecategoryofthemodernwriterheanalyzesinBeginnings.11
JacquesRanciereseesBorges’writingaspreciselynot“literature”inthecriticalsensehe
attemptstoarticulatethroughouthiswork.12AndMichelFoucaultfamouslybeginsThe
OrderofThingsbyofferingBorges’writingasofferinganexampleofthinkingexteriorto
the“Westernepisteme.”13
Thisconstellationofexclusions,finally,producesthesensethatR.NachmanandBorgesare
writingsomethingthatisananathematotherespectivecategoriesofliteraturebeing
studied,atextimpenetrabletoestablishedhermeneuticalmethods.R.NachmanandBorges
10RobertoFernándezRetamar,Calibán:ApuntesSobreLaCulturaEnNuestraAmérica(BuenosAires:LaPleyade,1973),52.11EdwardW.Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod(NewYork:BasicBooks,1975),Ch.4.12JacquesRanciere,ThePoliticsofLiterature,trans.JulieRose(Cambridge;Malden,MA:Polity,2011),Ch.7.13MichelFoucault,TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1971).Seealso,anotherinterestingandlessknownworkofFoucault,thatisinimportantwaystheprecursortoTheOrderofThings,thetitleofwhichalreadyresonateswithBorges’imagery:DeathandtheLabyrinth:TheWorldofRaymondRoussel(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1986).
6
arementionedbythemostprominentcriticsintherespectivefields,inwhichtheirwriting
isstudied.Butalwaysastheexceptionthatprovesarule—aboutmodernwritingor
religiouswriting,aboutliteratureormysticism,colonialismorpostcolonialism,Argentine
literatureorEuropeanliterature—arulethatsuchexceptionreinforcesevenasitcritiques
it.Byjuxtaposingandthushighlightingaconstellationofexceptionstowhichbothwriters
pertain—inspiteorirrespectiveoftheirhistorical,geographical,culturalandlinguistic
differences—thepresentstudyseekstoundermineboththeexceptionandtheruleit
presumes.Thisisacontradictoryendeavor,perhaps,butacontradictionthatcannotbe
avoided.
Iamcertainlynotthefirsttoquestiontherulesandexceptionsbywhichtheirwritinghas
beendefined.Inthe1970s,therewasasimultaneousattemptbyscholarsinseparate
disciplines,torethinkthewritingsofR.NachmanandBorgesinrelationtothecategoriesof
theirexclusion.14InthesamedecadeinwhichSaidandFoucaultwouldrecognizeBorgesas
anexception,scholarssuchasAlazrakiandSosnowskiwouldcentertheirquestionson
Borges’engagementwithJewishtextualtraditions—anengagementthat,asEdna
Aizenbergwouldsoonafterargue,isamajoraccesspointforcontemporaryscholarsto
appreciateBorges’verycentralcontributionstoquestionsofliteratureandpolitics,rather
14Therewasanearliergroupofessays,byliteraryscholarsinthe1960s,thatalsodealtwithBorges’exceptionalwriting.TheseincludedPauldeManandPierreMacherey,uponwhoseworkSaidand(later)RancierebuildtheirattitudestowardsBorges(andliteraturemoregenerally,ofcourse).Totheextentthattheexceptionisarticulatedintermsofa“modernism”(deMan)orafoldingoflanguageuponitself(Macherey),ratherthananexclusionfromcategoriesofliteratureandwriting,IwillnotattendtothisearlierdecadeofBorges’receptionhere.See:PauldeMan,"AModernMaster,"TheNewYorkReviewofBooks(November19,1964).And:PierreMachereyandGeoffreyWall,ATheoryofLiteraryProduction(London;Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul,1978),249-57.
7
thanevidenceforhisexceptionfromthe“Westernepisteme.”15InthestudyofR.Nachman,
therewasanattempttoreconcilehisexceptionfromScholem’swork,andexceptionalityin
Buber’swork,byscholarssuchasYosefDan,whowouldfocusonhislocationwithina
traditionofpre-modernJewishwriting.OtherssuchasArnoldBandwouldrecognizeR.
Nachman’slocationasatransitionalfigurebetween“pre-modern”Jewishwritingand
“modernJewishliterature.”
Interestingly,bothsetsofscholarscomeupwithsimilarcategoriesandquestionsthrough
whichtoreconciletherules,vis-à-viswhichR.NachmanandBorgeshavebeenthe
exception.Twosuchcategoriesarethetopicsofthefirsttwosectionsinthepresentstudy:
“CabbalisticStories,”and“theedgeoftradition.”Eachsectionisprecededbyan
introductionofitsowntothereceptionhistoryandliteraryquestionsitengages.
InthefirstsectionIdiscusstheterm“CabbalisticStories,”thatscholarshaveappendedto
bothR.NachmanandBorges’narratives.Idescribetheirattempttorecognizethistermas
denotingagenrethatarticulatesthedistancebetweenthewriterandhissurrounding
socialhistoricalsetting,whilealsoseekingtoengageitthroughtheverysamewriting.In
thefirstchapter,Iaddtothecharacterizationofthisgenrebydiscussingitspoetic
elementsinR.Nachman’swriting.Iidentifya“poeticsofintransitivity,”throughwhichR.
Nachman’stalesengagethegapbetweenwriterandsetting,butalsoaestheticizethisgap
15See:JaimeAlazraki,"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative,"StudiesinShortFiction8,no.1(1971).And:"BorgesandtheKabbalah,"TriQuarterly25(1972).;SaúlSosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo(BuenosAires:Ed.Hispamérica,1976).And:"ElVerboCabalísticoEnLaObraDeBorges,"Hispamérica3,no.9(1975).;EdnaAizenberg,TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges(Potomac,Md.:ScriptaHumanistica,1984).And:"PostmodernorPost-Auschwitz,BorgesandtheLimitsofRepresentation,"VariacionesBorges3(1997).
8
anditsmomentsoftransgression.Inthesecondchapter,IdiscussBorges’identificationof
Cabbalaasexpressiveofjustsuchagap,andhisuseofcabbalisticreferenceasaliterary
tropethatwouldcreateinhiswritinganengagementwiththisverysamegap.Ipay
particularattentiontothewaysinwhichthesetropesarecentraltohisarticulationofthe
roleoftheintellectualwriter.
Thesecondsectionbroadensthediscussiontowiderquestionsof“tradition,”andoutlines
theparticulartroubleeachofthesetwowritersisseenashavingwith“tradition.”Inthe
thirdchapter,IdiscussBorges’self-positioningvis-à-visEuropeandEuropeantradition
andtheimportanceof“theJudaic”asatropeinthisposition.InthefourthchapterIdiscuss
thelocationofR.Nachman’sself-positioningon“theedge”ofJewishtradition.Thisedge
indicatesbothatemporallocationalongthetransmissionoftraditionandageographic
designationoftheoutskirtsofEurope.Eachofthewritersathandislocatedonboth
edges—R.NachmaninthePaleofSettlementatthefirstmomentofitsmodernization,
BorgesinArgentinaatthemomenttheextentglobalordercollapsesintheaftermathof
WorldWarII.FollowingBeatrizSarlo’sworkonBorges,16Iarguethatopening“theedge”
intoanin-betweenspace,fromwhichtowriteinarealitywhere“tradition”nolongerhasa
stablemeaning,isacommonelementinboththeirliteraryprojects.
Howdoesonewrite“cabbalisticstories”fromtheedgeoftraditionorbeyond?(“Cabbala”
meansreceivedtradition.)InthefifthandfinalchapterIreadstoriesbyR.Nachmanand
Borgessidebyside,andoutlinethenarrativepoeticsofsuchaproject,whichinBorges’
16BeatrizSarlo,JorgeLuisBorges:AWriterontheEdge(London:Verso,1993).
9
wordsiscalled“HistoriaUniversal,”andinR.Nachman’stermsa“PoliticsofSecrecy.”
Chapterfiveattendstothenarrativepoeticssuggestedbytheseterms,andcomparatively
demonstratestheminastorybyeachwriter.
Aninnovationsuchasmetherehasneveryetbeeninalltheworld17
AnoverarchingpointofinterventionintotheaccountofR.NachmanandBorges’shared
receptionistodrawattentiontothefactthatbothR.NachmanandBorgesdevoteda
considerableamountofenergytorepresentingthemselvesasexceptional,toexcluding
themselvesfromthecategoriesofwritingandliteraturewithinwhichtheyoperatedin
theirowntimes.R.Nachmanrepeatedlyemphasizedtheunparalleledinnovationhe
introducedintothetraditionofJewishlettersandthought.Borgestoo,inlecturessuchas
“TheArgentineWriterandTradition,”emphasizesthedifferencebetweenhisliterary
projectandthoseofhiscontemporarywriters—whetherobsessedwith“localcolor”or
imitatingEuropeanforms.18
RicardoPigliahasanalyzedBorges’self-fashioningalongtwolinesofheritage:familialand
literary.Throughthesetwolines,BorgesdefinedhisplacewithinArgentinesocietyand
withinthefieldofliterature,respectively.19However,inPiglia’saccount,Borges’familyand
hislibraryservetolocatehimwithinnationalandliterarylineages.Thereisanothertrope
thatiscentraltohisself-positioningintermsofboththeselineages—andspecificallytohis
17NathanSternhartz,ChayeyMoharan(Lemberg1863),247.18Idiscussthislectureatlengthinchapter3.See:JorgeLuisBorges,"ElEscritorArgentinoYLaTradición,"CursosyConferenciasXLII,no.250(1953).19See:RicardoPiglia,"IdeologíaYFicciónEnBorges,"PuntodeVista2,no.5(1979).
10
positioningasanexceptiontoboth—theinheritanceof“theJudaic.”AllusionstoJewish
textsthatpopulatemanyofhistales,alongwithjocularintimationsofpossibleJewish
heritageinsuchtextsas“I,aJew,”20servetodislocatehimfromthefirmconstructionofhis
placeasArgentinewithinfamilialandliterarylines.Thesetwosetsoftropes,atonce
locatinganddislocatingBorgesfromhisArgentinesetting,shouldbeobservedwiththe
simultaneityinwhichtheyoccurinhiswriting.
However,allusionstotheJudaicarenotonlyacitationofalternatehistoricaltextsor
realities.(IdiscussthemediatedmannerinwhichBorgescametoknowthesetextsand
realitiesinchapter2.)WhatdrewBorgestotheJudaicwasalsotheveryprojectofa
discursiveself-presentationas“exceptional”or,tobemoreprecisewiththetermsBorges
used,“marginal.”(Inchapter3Idiscusswhatismeantbythis“margin”intermsof
literatureandauthorship.)
Similarly,R.Nachman’sself-positioningsimultaneouslybaseshimfirmlywithinthe
traditionalistsettingsofhisHasidiccourtanddislocateshimfromthatsetting.His
maternalfamilylineagerelatedhimbacktohisgreatgrandfather,theBaalShemTov
(founderofHasidism),whilehispaternalscholasticlineageledbacktotheBaalShemTov’s
intellectualcircle.FromwithinthisfirmgroundingintheHasidicmovement,R.Nachman
simultaneouslydislocateshimselffromthissettingwithstatementssuchas:“Iwilltakeyou
byanewway—awaythathasneverbeforeexisted.Itisindeedanancientway.Andyetit
20JorgeLuisBorges,"Yo,Judío,"Megáfono,no.12(April1934).
11
iscompletelynew.”21Or:“Iamtravelinganewpathwhichnomanhasevertravelled
before.Itisaveryoldpath,infact,andyetitiscompletelynew,”ashetoldhisstudents.22
ForR.Nachmanaswell,allusionstoJewishtraditionaltextsandfiguresserve
simultaneouslytogroundhiminhistraditionalistsettingandtodistancehimfromit.Heis
particularlyinvestedinidentifyingrabbinicprecursorsthatoccupysimilarpositionsand
whopresentthemselvesas“atthelimit”oftheirtraditionalsociety.(Idiscussthislimitand
R.Nachman’sprecursorsatthelimitinchapter4.)Inthatsense,representationsof“the
Judaic”aspartofaprojectofself-constructed,simultaneouslocationandexception,area
sharedtropeinR.NachmanandBorges’writing.
Locationwhere?And,exceptiontowhat?Eachofthesetwofigureslivedthroughextremely
tumultuoustimes.R.NachmanwasborntheyearthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealth—
hometothelargestJewishcollectiveofthetime—begantodisintegrate.Hislifespanned
theFrenchandAmericanRevolutions,theriseofEnlightenmentideologyandpolitical
emancipation,TzaristReformsandNapoleonicWars.Borgesspenthisteenageyearsin
EuropeduringWorldWarI,andreturnedtoArgentinaintimetowitnesstheInfamous
Decade,widespreadpro-GermansentimentthroughoutWorldWarIIandGeneralPeron’s
populistgovernmentrisetopowerinthepostwaryears.Whileneitherwriterwasatthe
centerofanyoftheseevents,boththeirsurroundingsocietyandtheirpersonalworldview
wereprofoundlyinfluencedbythem.WhileR.NachmansawtheriseofEnlightenment
ideologyandtheearlyimplementationofpoliticalemancipationpoliciesinEasternEurope,
Borgessawthetotalcollapseoftheseprojectsinthedictatorialandpopulistregimesof21Sternhartz,ChayeyMoharan,264.22Ibid.,392.
12
Argentina,andthenewsocialorderimaginedbytheThirdReich.BorgesandR.Nachman
inscribetheirwritingintothesehighlyvolatileandrapidlychangingrealities.Andindeed,
thefirstdiscursivemovetheyshareistodoubtthestabilityofanycategoryof“world”or
“reality.”
Herewearenowatthelimitandtheedge[…],foreverythinghasalimitandanend23
Thelocation“ontheedge”—oftradition,ofreality,ofmajorsocialchange—hasbeena
commonthemeinthereceptionofboth.(Idealwiththisindetailintheintroductionto
Section2.)Myintervention,asstatedearlier,isthatthislocation“ontheedge”isasmuch
oneidentifiedbytheircritics,asitisoneproducedbythemintheirownwriting.Their
writingsimultaneouslydiscursivelyproducesthelackof“aworld”andpoeticallyfillsthis
lackbyimaginingaworld.ThetwopartsofthiseffortwillbediscussedinSectionsTwo
andOnerespectively.InsectionOneIintroducethe“poeticsofintransitivity”thatR.
Nachmandevelops(chapter1),anditsrelationtoBorges’thoughtabouttheactivityand
locationoftheauthor(chapter2).InSectionTwoIanalyzethewayeachofthesewriters
stylizesthemselvesas“ontheedge,”andthewaythislocationinformsBorges’relationto
tradition(chapter3),andR.Nachman’slocationvis-à-vistheJewishEnlightenment
scholarsofhisday(chapter4).
InthefinalSectionofthisstudy,Ireadtwostories,byR.NachmanandBorges.ThefirstisR.
Nachman’stale“TheKingWhoDecreedConversion,”thesecondisBorges’story“TheMan
23Ibid.,195.
13
ontheThreshold.”Eachoftheseopensbydramatizingthecollapseofaworld.Itthen
proceedstonarratethesituation,inwhichthere-creationofaworldismadepossible.Itis
aworldthatrequiresendlessinterpretationandthatrepeatsitselfendlessly.Thoughthe
eruditionofbothR.NachmanandBorgesisimpressive,there-creationofaworldwhere
onehascollapseddoesnotrequirethemtoread.Itrequiresthemtowrite,tonarrate.In
thepagesthatfollowIreadthroughtheworldtheycreateandtheplaceoftheJudaicwithin
it.
Itisconjecturedthatthisbravenewworldistheworkofasecretsociety
[…]Thisplanissovastthateachwriter'scontributionisinfinitesimal.24
24Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,24.
14
SectionOne:“CabbalisticStories”
Interviewer:HaveyoutriedtomakeyourownstoriesCabbalistic?
Borges:Yes,sometimesIhave.1
Oneofthequestions,aroundwhichdebatesaboutbothBorgesandR.Nachman’sstories
circle,iswhetherandtowhatextenttheycanberegardedas“cabbalisticstories.”This
questionemergesforentirelydifferentreasons,indistinctacademiccontextsandby
researcherswithlittletonoknowledgeofeachother’sprojects.Andyet,intheearly1970s
theadjective“cabbalistic”isappendedtovariousaspectsinthewritingsofbothR.
NachmanandBorges.2Inbothcases,whatpreciselyisintendedbythisadjectiveremains
onlylooselydefined,whilethedebatesaboutitsapplicationtakeonaninterestinglysimilar
structure.3
1Thisexchange,whichwemightlegalisticallyterm“leadingthewitness,”isquotedin:RonaldChrist,"JorgeLuisBorges,theArtofFictionNo.39,"TheParisReview40(1967).2ThereareotheradjectivesthathavebeendiscussedinrelationtoR.Nachman’sstories:“Hebrew”and“Yiddish,”“printed,”butnoneoftheseareasprominentas“cabbalistic,”andnoneimplyamethodologicalframeworkthewaythelatterdoes.InBorgesscholarshipthereareotheradjectivesmorereadilydeployedbyscholars,suchas“ir-real”and“marginal”(thislastwilloccupyusinthenextsection).However,thespecialroleJudaism(andwithinittheBibleandCabbala)playedintheformationofBorges’literaryvoicehasbeenwelldemonstrated.(“Theso-sopoetandsharp-tonguedessayistwouldnothavebecome“Borges”[…]withouttheinterventionofwhathewouldcalllohebreo,”writesEdnaAizenberg,in:EdnaAizenberg,""I,aJew":Borges,NazismandtheShoah,"JewishQuarterlyReview104,no.3(2014):339.).“Cabbalistic”isafruitful,iflessutilized—andlessquestioned—adjective,throughwhichtoexamineBorges’writing,bothasitrelatestoJudaismandinbroaderterms.ForadiscussionofthelanguageofR.Nachman’stales,see:MendelPiekarz,HasidutBraslav:PerakimBe-HayeMeholelehaUvi-Khetaveha(Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1972),Ch.1.ForadiscussionoftheimplicationsofprinttechnologyinBraslavideology,see:DavidB.Siff,"ShiftingIdeologiesofOralityandLiteracyinTheirHistoricalContext:RebbeNahhmanofBratslav’sEmbraceoftheBookasaMeansforRedemption,"Profftexts30(2010).ForabroaderviewoftheJewishinfluenceonBorges,see:Aizenberg,TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges.FormoreonBorgesand“themargin,”see:BeatrizSarlo,Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas(BuenosAires:Ariel,1995).3Athirdwriterthatmightcometomindinthecontextof“cabbalisticstories”isFranzKafka.Kafka’srelationtotheCabbalawasraisedbyGershomScholemin:GershomScholem,ZehnUnhistorischeSätzeÜberKabbala(Zurich:Rhein-Verlag,1958),Satz10.Commentatorsonthisassociationhavebeendoubtfulastoitspotential.
15
AmongBorges’readers,JaimeAlazrakidescribeshisstoriesthus:“Behindhistransparent
textsthereliesastylisticintricacy,acertainKabbalistictexture.”Itispossibletoidentify
“inhisstoriesaKabbalisticaura,”4hestates.Andinanarticletitled“KabbalisticTraitsin
Borges’Narration”headds:“OneofthewondersofBorges’artispreciselythatKabbalistic
featureapparentinmanyofhisnarrativetexts.”5SaulSosnowski,ontheotherhand,claims
thatwhile“itisanundeniablefactthatBorgesusescabbalisticmotifs,”nevertheless,Borges
“doesnotwritehistoricalmanualsnorcabbalistictexts.”6ForSosnowski,Borges’texts
Thus,DavidBialeremarksthat“Scholem’srelationshiptoFranzKafkaasanunwittingproductofa‘hereticalKabbalah’deservesanessayinitsownrightforwhatittellsusaboutScholemhimself.”See:DavidBiale,"GershomScholem'sTenUnhistoricalAphorismsonKabbalah:TextandCommentary,"ModernJudaism5,no.1(1985):88.[emphasisadded—Y.L.]MosheIdel,inalaterarticle,spellsout“whatittellsusaboutScholemhimself,”stating:“IwouldsaythatavisionofKafkaasrepresentativeofasecularizedKabbalahisbaseduponacomparisonofthingsthatareincomparable[…]NottoomuchofKabbalahisfoundinKafka[…]MuchmoreofKafkaisfound,however,inScholem’sownunderstandingofKabbalah.”See:MosheIdel,"Hieroglyphs,Keys,Enigmas:OnG.G.Scholem'sVisionofKabbalah:BetweenFranzMolitorandFranzKafka,"inArcheNoah:DieIdeeDer"Kultur"ImDeutsch-JüdischenDiskurs,ed.BernhardGreinerandChristophSchmidt(Freiburg:RombachVerlag,2002),242.Biale,inthecitedarticle,alsoimpliesabroaderapplicationofIdel’sinsight,askingwhetherwemightthinkofthemodernphilosophicalcategoriesScholemmentionsintheseaphorismsasmodels,throughwhichheunderstoodthecabbalistshestudied.“ScholemboldlysuggestsparallelsbetweenmodernschoolsofthoughtandtheKabbalah:dialecticalmaterialismandtheLurianicKabbalah,phenomenologyandMosesCordovero,FranzKafkaandtheeighteenthcenturyFrankist,JonasWehle.”(Biale,"GershomScholem'sTenUnhistoricalAphorismsonKabbalah:TextandCommentary,"67-68.)ForanotherinterpretationofScholem’s“TenUnhistoricalAphorisms,”see:JosephDan,"BeyondtheKabbalisticSymbol,"JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought5(1986).DiscussionsofR.NachmanandBorges’“cabbalisticstories”lackthekindofadhominemtonecitedabove.MuchofthewritingonKafkaandtheCabbalatakesScholem’sobservationsonthematterastheirstartingpoint.Seeforexample:Karl-Erich.Grözinger,KafkaandKabbalah,trans.SusanHeckerRay(NewYork:Continuum,1994),1-2.Ortheyofferanunderstandingof“TheCabbala”thatisalreadydeeplyindebtedtoanunderstandingofKafkathatisitselffound,asIdelputsit,“inScholem’sownunderstandingoftheKabbalah.”See,forexample,thedefinitionofCabbalaofferedbyWalterStrauss.“ThehistoricalKabbalahwasintendedtobeasecretkeytoarevelationwhosepower[…]hadalreadybeguntoweaken,”heasserts,in:WalterA.Strauss,OntheThresholdofaNewKabbalah:Kafka'sLaterTales(NewYork:PeterLang,1988),3.Idel,inthearticlereferencedabove,offersacritiqueofthemetaphoroftheCabbalaasa“key,”inScholem’sunderstandingofCabbala.(See:Idel,"Hieroglyphs,Keys,Enigmas:OnG.G.Scholem'sVisionofKabbalah:BetweenFranzMolitorandFranzKafka,"234-41.)Ofcourse,themajorityofscholarshiponKafkadoesnotdealwiththe“cabbalistic”question,evenwithinthefieldofJewishLiterature.See:DanMiron,FromContinuitytoContiguitytowardaNewJewishLiteraryThinking(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2010),Ch.10-11.Atanyrate,theentanglementofScholemandKafkainthesediscussionsraisesmethodologicalquestionsthatare,aswillbecomeclear,nottheonesIamdealingwithhere.4Alazraki,"BorgesandtheKabbalah,"241.5"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative."6Sosnowski,"ElVerboCabalísticoEnLaObraDeBorges,"37.
16
“containcabbalisticelements,”whichitis“thetaskoftheliterarycritictostudythese
motifsintheirfictionalcontext.”7
AmongthereadersofR.Nachman,ArthurGreenrecognizestheintendedfunctionofthe
talesaspreparationfortheadventoftheMessiah,8whileJosephDancallsR.Nachman’s
collectionoftales“oneofthemostintriguingJewishliteraryandmysticaltexts[…]afusion
ofliteratureandmysticism,usingprofoundconceptsdrawnfromKabbalahandHasidism.”9
ArnoldBand,ontheotherhand,statesthat“[R.Nachman’s]storiesarebasedonlyonhis
ownpersonalexperience.Still,wedofindmajorKabbalisticelements[…]servingasmajor
motifswithinthetales.Butthereisabasicdifferencebetween‘using’Kabbalisticideasand
‘expressing’theminthetales:thoseelementswhicharepresentinthetalesceasedtobe
buildingblocksofamysticaltheologyandbecamechaptersinthemysticalbiographyof
RabbiNachman’ssoul.”10
Thequestionofwhethertheuseof“cabbalisticmotifs”makesatext“cabbalistic”ornotis
onewewilladdressinthechaptersofthissection.Thefirstthingtonoteisthatthe
adjective“cabbalistic”isnever—inanyoftheresearchquotedabove—definedorexplained
inanysignificantway.ThemajorityofstudiesattributingthisappellationtothestoriesofR.
NachmanandBorgesareconductedwithinthedisciplineofLiteraryStudies.The
familiaritytheseresearchersdemonstratewiththefieldofJewishMysticismis7Ibid.8See:ArthurGreen,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav(Woodstock,Vt.:JewishLightsPub.,1992),Ch.6&ExcursusII.9JosephDan,"RabbiNahman'sThirdBeggar,"inHistoryandLiterature:NewReadingsofJewishTextsinHonorofArnoldJ.Band,ed.WilliamCutterandDavidC.Jacobson(Providence,RI:PrograminJudaicStudies,BrownUniversity,2002),41-42.10Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales,xvii.[emphasisadded—Y.L.]
17
rudimentary.11Forthemostpart,thetermistakentohaveacommonsensicalmeaning,
whichisalmostexclusivelyborrowedfromGershomScholem.12Theresultisthatmany
studiesendupinadvertently—evenunknowingly—takingsidesintheongoingdebate
about“Cabbala”asanobjectofacademicstudy.Indeed,inthecontextofthemore
specializeddebateonJewishMysticism,theadjective“cabbalistic”seemquiteoutofplace
here.
AtpresentthedebateregardingthestudyoftheCabbalacanbesummedupinthe
disagreementbetweenElliotWolfsonandBoazHuss.13Wolfson“subscribe[s]totheview
thatmysticalexperience,likeexperiencemoregenerally,iscontextual.”14Still,heproposes
thereare“deepstructuresthatmaybeilluminatedthroughacomparativestudyofvarious
mysticaltraditions.”15Huss,ontheotherhand,insiststhat“thevariousculturalphenomena
presentlyincludedinthefiledofstudyofJewishmysticism[shouldbestudiedas]cultural
productionsthatformedoutofpoliticalneedsinspecifichistorical,economicandsocial
frameworks.”16ForthestudentofJewishMysticism,thisdifference—betweenWolfson’s
11Mostprominently,inliteraryresearchonR.Nachman;ArnoldBandandZviMark.InBorgesStudies;JaimeAlazrakiandSaulSosnowski.NotableexceptionstothisareJosephDanandEliotWolfson,bothscholarsofJewishMysticismwhohavealsowrittenonR.NachmanandBorgesrespectively.Eveninthislattercase,whileeachhaswrittenontheirownunderstandingof“TheCabbala,”theydonotoffersuchadefinitionintheirstudiesofR.NachmanorBorges.See:JosephDan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi(Yerushalayim:BetHotsa`ahKeterYerushalayim,1975),Ch.3.And:ElliotWolfson,"IntheMirroroftheDream:BorgesandthePoeticsofKabbalah,"JewishQuarterlyReview104,no.3(2014).12Thisisevidentinthereferencesprovidedandtheassumptionsmadeaboutthetextualityandcanonicityof“TheCabbala,”andwillbediscussedfurtherinthenextchapters.13Bothofwhom,itisimportanttonote,markadeparturefromScholem’sviewof“TheCabbala.”Forasummaryofthisdebate,see:BoazHuss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism,"Pe'amim,no.110(2007).14ElliotWolfson,ThroughaSpeculumThatShines:VisionandImaginationinMedievalJewishMysticism(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),52.15Ibid.,55.16Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism,"13.Seealso:"ContemporaryKabbalahandItsChallengetotheAcademicStudyofJewishMysticism,"inKabbalahandContemporary
18
Chomskian“deepstructure”approachtomysticalexperienceontheonehandand,onthe
other,Huss’resistancetoboth“deepstructures”andtothecategoryof“experience”itself
inthestudyofCabbala—iscertainlyacentralissue.Butforthestudentofliteraturethis
debatedoesnotcontributetoourattempttomakesenseoftheterm“cabbalisticstories.”17
Viewedasacontextualexpressionofadeepstructureofmysticalexperiencesattainedby
thewriter,theadjective“cabbalistic”wouldbenonsensicalwithregardtoBorges’stories,
andmisleadingwithregardtoR.Nachman’saswell,sincetherehasbeennoclaimmade
(byR.Nachman,hisdisciplesoracademicscholarship)thathistalesexpresssuch
experiences.18Viewedastextsthatshouldberegardedandinterpretedas“cultural
productionsthatformedoutofpoliticalneedsinspecifichistorical,economicandsocial
frameworks,”19callingthesestories“cabbalistic”wouldsimplyberedundant.
However,denyingtheproliferationofallusionstomajortextsofCabbalainthewritingsof
R.NachmanandBorgeswouldbeequallynonsensical.Notonlydotheyrepeatedlyreferto
termsandsymbols,butalsotospecificbooksofCabbala.20Theseallusionswillleadusto
twocentralquestions.First:WhatdoR.NachmanandBorgesperceivethemselvesasdoingSpiritualRevival,ed.BoazHuss,TheGoldstein-GorenLibraryofJewishThought(Beer-Sheva:Ben-GurionUniversityoftheNegev,2011).17Foracritiqueof“TheCabbala”fromaperspectiveclosertoLiteraryStudies,seeGilAnidjar’sdiscussionoftherhetoricalconstitutionofthefieldofJewishmysticismandCabbala—andmostcentrallyScholem’sroleinit—in:GilAnidjar,"OurPlaceinAl-Andalus":Kabbalah,Philosophy,LiteratureinArabJewishLetters(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2002),Esp.Ch.3.Seealso:"JewishMysticismAlterableandUnalterable:OnOrientingKabbalahStudiesandthe'ZoharofChristianSpain',"JewishSocialStudies3,no.1(1996).18EvenZviMark,whoaloneinsiststhatR.Nachmanhadmysticalexperiences—anddocumentedthem(albeitesoterically)inhiswritings—interestinglyshiesawayfromthetalesinhisdiscussion.See:ZviMark,HitgalutVe-Tikun:Bi-KhetavavHa-GeluyimVeha-SodiyimShelR.NahmanMi-Breslav(Yerushalayim:MagnesPress,HebrewUniversity,2011).19Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism,"13.Seealso:"ContemporaryKabbalahandItsChallengetotheAcademicStudyofJewishMysticism."20SuchasSeferYetzirah,TheZohar,EtzHaChayim(themajorworkoftheLurianicschool).
19
whentheyinsertsuchreferencesintotheirstories?Andhowdotheyrepresentthataction
intheirownreflectionsonwriting?Second:Howarewetoreadthesereferenceswithout,
ontheonehand,introducingtheologicalassumptionsaboutthenatureandrealityof
religiousexperience—assumptionswehavealreadyarguedareirrelevantinthiscontext—
while,ontheotherhand,givingthesereferencestheattentiontheymeritaspersistent
componentsoftheirstories?
Tobegin,IwouldliketosuggestadifferentimplicationofCabbalainthewritingsofR.
NachmanandBorges.ViewedfromtheperspectiveofCabbalaasadiscursivelyconstructed
object,relatinginparttothediscursiveconstructionofthecategoryof“Religion”onthe
onehandandof“JewishNationalism”ontheother,theadjectivisationofthisobjectwith
regardtoacollectionofstoriestakesonadifferentsignificance.HusshistoricizesJewish
Mysticismasanobjectofacademicstudythatemergedinthemid-nineteenthcenturyin
GermanyandFrance.21UnderstoodastheparticularlyJewishexpressionofauniversal
mysticalexperience,itwasframedaspartofabroaderacademicinterestinMysticismat
thetime.Criticizingthisbroaderinterest,RichardKingexplainsthebasicassumptionwas
that“mysticism”—acategorytheretoforeoperativeonlyinthecontextofChristianreligion,
andreligiousexperienceinparticular—couldbefruitfullyextended,throughcomparison
andcontrast,tootherphenomenaof“worldreligions.”22JewishMysticismbecame
increasinglyassociatedwith“TheCabbala”inthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,
21See:Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism."22Kingcriticizesboththe“implicitmonotheism”ofthisunderstandingofmysticism,aswellasitsprivilegingofthecategoryofexperience.See:RichardKing,OrientalismandReligion:PostcolonialTheory,Indiaand'theMysticEast'(London;NewYork:Routledge,1999),8.
20
throughtheworksofMartinBuberand(later)GershomScholem.23Thecomparative
approachwasthemethodologicalbasisforScholem’sframingof“TheCabbala”asan
independentobjectofstudy.“ScholemrecognizedinthemysticalfoundationofJudaismthe
vitalnationalforcethatenableditsexistenceinexile,”statesHuss,“andwhichdialectically
ledtoJewishEnlightenmentandZionism.”24
Viewedaspartofacorpusoftextsthatareantitheticalto,yetdialecticallyenablingof,
JewishNationalism,thequestionofwhetherthesestoriesare“cabbalistic”takesona
meaningentirelytangentialtothedebateonJewishMysticism.Asanhistoriographical
momentinthedevelopmentofModernJewishLiterature,theconsolidationoftheobject
“TheCabbala”marksthediscursiveconstructionofabreakthatwillbecentraltothe
understandingofModernHebrewLiteratureasboth“Jewish”and“new.”25Putinother
terms,thisconsolidationispartofamomentthatsimultaneouslymarked“old”Jewish
literatureascontinuous,andtheendofthatcontinuity.26
Theimplicationof“cabbalistic”literatureinquestionsofruptureandcontinuityisevident
23See:Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism."Itisimportanttonotethat,whileclaimingthereissuchacoherentobjectasJewishMysticism,Scholemtoorecognizesthecontingencyofthephenomenahestudies.Butheattributesthiscontingencytodifferencesbetween“religioussystems,”thuskeepingthediscussionsquarelywithinthestudyofreligion,ratherthanthesocio-historicalandpoliticalcontextsHussispromotinginthestudyofCabbala.[See:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,15-18.]Forabroadercritiqueofthecategoryof“religion”asanequallydiscursivelyproducedobject,see:TalalAsad,GenealogiesofReligion:DisciplineandReasonsofPowerinChristianityandIslam(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1993).24Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism,"23.FormoreontherelationbetweenScholem’sconceptionofCabbalaandhispoliticalthought,see:DavidBiale,GershomScholem:KabbalahandCounter-History(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1979).25Foradiscussionoftheconstitutiveroleofthisbreak,see:GilAnidjar,"LiteraryHistoryandHebrewModernity,"ComparativeLiteratureStudies42,no.4(2005).26IamofcoursedrawinguponDanMiron’srecentsuggestiontothinkbeyond“continuity”astheorganizing(ordisrupting)principleoftheobjectthatis“JewishLiterature.”See:Miron,FromContinuitytoContiguitytowardaNewJewishLiteraryThinking.
21
alreadyinBuber’s1906prefacetohisGermantranslationofTheTalesofRabbiNachman:
RabbiNachmanofBratzlav,whowasbornin1772anddiedin1810,is
perhapsthelastJewishmystic.Hestandsattheendofanunbroken
tradition,whosebeginningwedonotknow.27
“Anunbrokentradition,”thatisnowbroken.Arabbithatis“thelast,”who“standsatthe
end.”Whatdothesewordsmeanasfarasthe“cabbalistic”aspectofhistales—foritisa
bookoftalesBuberintroduceswiththesewords.(Theobjectof“Cabbala”wasconsolidated
throughtherhetoricofitbeing“theend,”saysAnidjar28—theobjectof“Literature”came
intobeingthroughtherhetoricofitbeinga“beginning,”saysSaid.29)Tocallthesetales
“cabbalistic”istoidentifythemasthemarkofarupture,ontheothersideofwhich“we”
(Buber’sreaders)exist,asadiscoursewithwhich“we”maintainnocontinuity.Tocall
thesetales“cabbalistic”istoinsistontheirun-readabilityastales.Acritiqueofthis
assumption—andoftheunnecessarilylimitedsetofliteraryanalyticalquestionsappliedto
thestudyofR.Nachman’stales—willbethetopicofthefirstchapterinthissection.
WhilefromtheperspectiveofthefieldofMysticismorReligiousStudies,aswehaveseen,
“cabbalistic”isnotbroadenoughtobeinstructive,fromtheperspectiveofthefieldof
Literaturethiscategoryisnotnarrowenoughtobeuseful.Inamorerecentvariationon
thethemeof“cabbalisticstories,”DonSeemanandShaulMagidhaveraisedthequestionof
27Buber,TheTalesofRabbiNachman,3.28See:Anidjar,"OurPlaceinAl-Andalus":Kabbalah,Philosophy,LiteratureinArabJewishLetters.29See:Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod.
22
“thewaysinwhichJewishmysticaltextsfunctionasliterature.”30Infurtherunpacking
theirquestion,itbecomesclearthatfromtheperspectiveofLiteraryStudies,“themystical
text’sfunctionasliterature”and“theliterarytext’sfunctionasmysticism”are
indistinguishable.31
Theparadeofusagestheappellationreceives—”mysticaltexts,”“mysticalwriting,”
“mysticalconsciousness,”“mysticalexpressions,”“mysticalthemes,”“mysticalpoetics,”the
constellationofwhichendsupformingthecategoryof“mysticalliterature,”producedin
turnby“mysticalwriters”and“mysticalteachers”32—wouldsuggestitsmeaningistoo
vaguetobeusefultothestudyofliterature.PierreMachereyhaspointedtoamoment
aroundtheturnoftheeighteenthcentury,when“literature”and“philosophy”were
discursivelyseparated.33Thedifficultywiththeterm“cabbalisticstories”—atoncetoo
broadandtoonarrow—istheresultofasimilardiscursiveseparationbetween“literature”
and“mysticism”thattookplaceatthesametime.Aseparationthattheearly1970sreaders
ofbothR.NachmanandBorgesattemptedtobridgethroughthecategoryof“cabbalistic
stories.”Thoughtheattempttothinkpastdisciplinarylinesdistinguishingmysticismfrom
literatureisachallengewewillheretakeonaswell,theresultofapplyingthisveryloose,30DonSeemanandShaulMagid,"MysticalPoetics:TheJewishMysticalTextasLiterature,"Prooftexts29,no.3(2009):317.31“Theformerislargelyaquestionabouthow(andtowhatextent)modelsthathavebeendevelopedforthestudyofliteraturemightbeappliedtothespecializedtextsofJewishmysticism;thelatterasks,inaddition,howliteraryandotherfeaturesofsuchtextsrelatetocultureandthephenomenologyofreligion”(ibid.)32Ibid.,317-18,20.33See:PierreMacherey,TheObjectofLiterature(Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995).GilAnidjarhasidentifiedtheseparationsof“MuslimfromChristianSpain,JewsfromArabs,Kabbalahfromliterature,literaturefromphilosophy,andtextfromcontext,”inthestudyofArabJewishletters.(Anidjar,"OurPlaceinAl-Andalus":Kabbalah,Philosophy,LiteratureinArabJewishLetters,6.)ThemomentsIamdiscussinghereform,inasense,laterlinksinachainofdiscursiveseparationsthatincludes:(1)theturnoftheeighteenthcentury—themomentthesediscoursesfashionasabreak,andthemselvesashavingemergedfrom—and(2)themid-twentiethcentury—themomentthesediscoursesarecementedintothediscretefieldofJewishMysticism.
23
uncriticalcategoryhasprovedofdoubtfulvalueforthestudyofR.NachmanandBorges.
Tobeclear,IdonotintendtoarguethatR.NachmanandBorges’storiesarenot
“cabbalistic”butrather,infact,“literary.”Thishasasmuchtodowithreservationsabout
thedivisionof“literature”fromCabbala,aswiththeincoherenceoftheadjective
“cabbalistic.”Thesubstitutionoftheformerforthelatterwouldsimplysubstituteone
untenabledivisionforanother.Inthis,IfollowthereservationsEdwardSaidhasstated
quiteclearlyintheopeningpagesofBeginningsregarding
Thedissatisfactionfeltatthenotionthat“literature”couldbe
discussedasacompletelyseparategenreofhumanactivity.Relatedto
thisdissatisfactionisthepositiveattitudethat[...]indeedmostofthe
modesofwritingaboutmenandwomeninhistoryare,infact,tangled
uptogether,thattheyareoftenseparatedonprofessional,even
epistemologicalgroundsinordertoaccomplishsocialgoalsofonesort
oranother,andthatcriticismifitistobecriticismandnotonlythe
celebrationofmasterpieces,dealswiththeseparations,the
entanglements,theconsequencesofwhatRaymondWilliamshas
recentlyentitledWritinginSociety.34
Extendingtheseobservationstotheapplicationoftheadjective“cabbalistic”toBorges’
storieswouldopentwosetsofquestions,whichwillbecentraltoourreadingofBorgesin
thesecondchapterofthissection.FirstistheparadigmaticshiftBorgessignalsinhisown34Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,xiv.Saidrefershereto:RaymondWilliams,WritinginSociety(London:Verso,1983).
24
discussionsoftheCabbala,awayfrom“cabbalistic”asamodeofreadingand
interpretation,35towards“cabbalistic”asaproblematicofwritinginhiscontemporary
society.Secondistheentanglementofthismodeof“cabbalistic”writingwithwhatBorges
identifiesas“theJudaic.”ThuswhenBorgesadmitstohavingattemptedwriting
“cabbalisticstories,”heconstructshisowncontiguitywithwhatheidentifiesasthe
paradigmaticallyJudaicquestionofruptureandcontinuity.36
Finally,beyondthedifficultyinclearlydenotingagenreorstyleofwriting,thelabelof
“cabbalisticstories”hashadprofoundmethodologicalimplicationsforthestudyofboth
thesewriters.Callingtheirwritings“cabbalistic”locatesthemwithinadiscursivefield,the
limitsofwhicharepresumedattheoutsetratherthaninvestigated.Amereallusion—byR.
NachmanorBorges—tosomethingrelatedto“TheCabbala”sufficestoactivatethis
definition.Andthisdefinitionistakenasananswertoquestionsregardingaesthetic
decisionsmadebythewriter.ThusAlazraki’sfirstexampleofwhat“generatesin[Borges’]
storiesaKabbalisticaurawhosesourcegoesfarbeyondafortuitousfamiliaritywiththe
Kabbalah”37istheappearanceofvariousbooksrelatingtoCabbalaandHassidism—first
amongwhichis(Borges’own)“AVindicationoftheCabbala”—asthenarratortellsus,on
thebookshelfofDoctorMarcelYarmolinsky,thefirstcharactertobeassassinatedin“Death
andtheCompass.”38Similarly,thefirstevidenceDanbringstosupporthisclaimthat“the
mainmaterials,whichserveasdirectbuildingblocksforthemeaningofthetale,aretaken35Anotherimportantfiguretobementionedinthecontextofarelationbetweenthe1970sidentificationofR.NachmanandBorges’“cabbalisticstories”andtheunderstandingofCabbalaasamodeofreadingisHaroldBloom,particularly:HaroldBloom,KabbalahandCriticism(NewYork:Seabury,1975).36ThisisasuggestionalreadymadebyBorgesintheearly1950sinsuchtextsas“TheArgentineWriterandtradition,”whichwewillreadinthenextsection.37Alazraki,"BorgesandtheKabbalah,"242.38Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,85-94.
25
fromtheworldoftheCabbalaanditssymbolism,”39isthatR.Nachman’sdisciplesfound
such“materials”intheirreadingofthetales.Whatmakesthedisciples’identificationallthe
morereliableasproofofthe“cabbalistic”materialsofthetales,isthattheyrelyonthingsR.
Nachmanhimselftoldthemaboutthetales.40ForbothAlazrakiandDan,theidentification
ofthesestoriesas“cabbalistic”beginswiththeirallusiontotheCabbala.Theprivilegingof
the“cabbalistic”asaninterpretivelensdrawsfirstandforemostontheauto-referential
tendencyofthesetwowriters—BorgeswhoinsertshisowntitlesontheCabbalaintohis
tales,andR.NachmanwhopointsouttohisstudentshisownallusionstoworksofCabbala.
Afurthersharedmethodologicalproblemthatresultsfromtheuseofthisadjective,isthat
scholarsofBorgesandtheCabbalaaredeeplyindebtedtoGershomScholemfortheir
definitionof“TheCabbala,”butdonotmakethisdebtexplicitinanyway.Asforscholarsof
R.Nachman,somearestudentsofCabbalaintheirownright(suchasJosephDan),whodo
notmaketheirdifferenceswithScholemexplicit,whilediscussingthe“cabbalistic”
elementsofR.Nachman’sstories.EliotWolfson(ascholarofCabbalawhohasalsowritten
onBorges)doesn’tmakehisdifferencewithScholemevidenteither.Inanarticletitled“In
theMirroroftheDream:BorgesandthePoeticsofKabbalah,”Wolfsonassertsthat“the
crucialrolethatKabbalahhasplayedinthewritingsofJorgeLuisBorgeshasbeenthefocus
ofaconsiderablenumberofacademicstudies.”41Hisexplicitreferenceistothestudiesof
AlazrakiandSosnowskiwho(aswasjustmentioned)relyimmenselyonScholemfortheir
definitionoftheCabbala.ThisglossobfuscatesthedeepdisagreementsWolfsonhaswith
39Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,137.40Ibid.41Wolfson,"IntheMirroroftheDream:BorgesandthePoeticsofKabbalah,"362.
26
whatthesecitedstudiesassume“TheCabbala”tobe.Theresultisthateveryoneseemsto
agreethatR.NachmanandBorgesare“cabbalistic”writers.Butsincetheydon’tagreeon
whatthisadjectiveintends,itisdifficulttomakesenseoftheir“agreement.”
NorcanR.NachmanorBorgesresolvethis“agreement.”RegardingBorges’tendencyto
generalize“TheCabbala”intoafixedsetofdoctrines,Wolfsonstates:“Thetendencyto
generalizeshouldnotbemisconstruedasanargumenttoviewthevariegatedhistoryof
Jewishmysticaldoctrinesandpracticesmonolithically.”42ButwhywouldBorgesbemaking
anargumentaboutthehistoryofCabbalainthefirstplace?He’snotahistorian,andhas
himselfclearlystatedasmuch.ThisisanargumentbetweenWolfsonandpreviousscholars
ofCabbalathatisnotmadeexplicit,andhasnothingtodowithBorges’“startlingintuitive
graspofsomeoftherudimentaryprinciplesofJewishesotericism.”43Borgesthinksof
Cabbala“monolithically”(inWolfson’slanguage)becauseofthesources,fromwhichhe
learnedaboutit.Heisnotmakinganargumentasmuchassummingupwhathehasread.44
And,importantly,thesesourcesendwith,andareconsolidatedforBorges,inScholem’s
work—whichissimultaneouslyWolfson’spointofdeparture.
Ourdiscussioninthissection,foreachofthetwowritersinturn,willbeginwithan
examinationofthemethodologicaleffectsproducedbythiscategoryof“cabbalisticstories.”
42Ibid.,369.43Ibid.,364.44AmongwhatBorgesreadare:JohnPeterStehelin,TheTraditionsoftheJews;withtheExpositionsandDoctrinesoftheRabbins,ContainedintheTalmudandOtherRabbinicalWritings.TranslatedfromtheHightDutch.(London1732);MartinBuber,Hasidism(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1948);ErichBischoff,DieElementeDerKabbalah(Berlin:H.Barsdorf,1913);JoshuaTrachtenberg,JewishMagicandSuperstition,aStudyinFolkReligion(NewYork:Behrman'sJewishBookHouse,1939).Forafullerlistsee:Sosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo,13-15.Aswellasthebibliographyofthepresentstudy.
27
Itwillthenproceedtoaskwhattheroleoftheseallusionsisinthewritingsofthesetwo
figures,andsuggestawayinwhichtoreadthem.Questionsofintentionandmethodwill
thusbeafocusofthissection,aswillanefforttoshiftthediscussionaboutthesetwo
writersawayfromconsideringthemannerinwhichtheyshouldbereadandtoward
questionsabouthowtheysawthemselvesaswriters,engagingasimilarproblematicin
theiractivityofwriting.
28
Chapter1:
TalestheWorldTells
Tobegintoapprehendatext
istobegintofindintentionandmethodinit.1
Abeginning,writesSaid,“notonlycreatesbutisitsownmethodbecauseithasintention.In
short,beginningismakingorproducingdifference.”2WhatwoulditmeantoreadR.
Nachmanfromthebeginning?AndwheremightwelocatethebeginninginR.Nachman’s
writing?Everytextbeginswiththeauthor’sintentiontowrite,suggestssaid.Letusbegin
withthestatementsofintentionthatprefaceR.Nachman’scollectionoftales.Inthevery
firstedition,therearealreadythreeseparatestatements.Thefirstisthetitlepage,inwhich
thepublisherintroducesthebook;thesecondistheeditor’sintroduction—inthiscaseR.
NathanSternhartz—whoexplainstherationalforcompilingthetales;thethirdisa
statementR.Nachmanmaderegardinghistales,clearlydemarcatedfromR.Nathan’s
introduction,butinterspersedwiththelatter’scommentary.
Thetitlepagestatesitisa“BookofTalesthatwehavemeritedtohearfromthemouthof
ourholyrabbi.”3TheparagraphthatfollowsoffersgeneralthankstoGodforproviding
eachgenerationwithrabbistoleadit,andextolsthewisdomoftherabbisto“clotheand
1Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,59.2Ibid.,xvii.3NachmanofBraslav,SippureiMaasiyot(Lemberg,1815),1a.
29
conceal”4theirteachingswithintales.Onthesametitlepage,belowadecorativegraphic
element,therecomesinsmallerfontadisclaimerofsorts,whichreads:
Also,thosewhoarewisewillunderstandoftheirownaccordthatnot
likethegentilesthatlivedinthetimesofthesagesoftheTalmudare
thesegentilesinwhoselandswelive,forthose[former]wereidol
worshippers[…]butthepeoplesofourtimesfearGodandhonorthe
Torah,docharityandjusticeintheirlandsandcharitywiththeJews
whotakerefugeundertheirwings,5andfarbeitfromustospeakor
writeanythingsoastodenigratethem,andeveryplaceinthisbook
thatitmentionsagentile,ornon-Jewornationsoftheworldandthe
liketheintentionistothepagansofthetimeoftheMishnah.6
Suchstatementswerestandarddisclaimersatthetime.Thepublisherwouldinsertthemso
astopreemptandappeasethegovernmentcensors.7ReadersofR.Nachman’sdaywould
surelyglossoveritthewaycontemporaryreadersglossoverthecopyrightpagewiththe
LibraryofCongressreferenceinformationincurrentpublications.Whilethetitlepage
introductionlaudsthewisdomofrabbisto“clotheandconceal”8teachingswithintalesasa
matteroftheological-esotericpractice,thepublisher’sdisclaimeronthesamepagemarks
thebroaderpoliticalforcesunderlyingatext’s“concealment.”Themainaimofthe
publisher’sdisclaimeristoexcuseanyunflatteringrepresentationofnon-Jewsinthetales4Ibid.5AlludingtoPsalms91:46Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,1a.7FormoreonthedevelopmentandcontentofcoverpagesinthehistoryofHebrewprint,see:YaakovShmuelSpiegel,ChaptersintheHistoryoftheJewishBook,3vols.,vol.3–BeSha'areiHaDefus(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversity,2014).8Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,1a.
30
thatfollow,andthereissometensionbetweentheformulaiclanguageofthisparagraph
andthefactthatthetalesinthiscollectioncertainlyrepresentnon-Jewsand“nationsofthe
world”throughverycontemporaryconcerns.Thisthemeisrevisitedinthethird
introduction,whichrelatesastatementbyR.Nachmanhimself.
Beforehetoldthefirsttaleofthisbook,hesaid:“inthetalestheworld
tellstherearemanyhiddenandveryloftythings,butthetaleshave
beenruinedformuchismissingfromthem,andalsotheyhavebeen
confusedandarenottoldin[thecorrect]order,forwhatbelongsinthe
beginningistoldattheendandvisaversa,andsuch[confusions],but
intruththereareinthetalestheworldtellshiddenandverylofty
things,andtheBaalShemTovofblessedmemorywasablethroughthe
tellingofataletounite[mystical]unions,whenhewouldseethatthe
heavenlychannelshadbroken,anditwasimpossibletorepairthem
throughprayer,hewouldmendandunitethembytellingatale.”And
ourrabbi[Nachman]spokemoreaboutthis,andthenhebegantotell
thetaleontheadjacentpage.9
Thefirstthingwereadinthisstatementistheexplicitreferenceto“theworld,”ina
mannerthatdoesnoteasilyaccordwiththepublisher’sdisclaimer.Insubsequentlinesitis
clearR.Nachmanisnotreferringtotalestoldby“thePagansoftheMishna,”butbyhis
contemporaries.AndthereisnodistinctionmadebetweentalesrelatedbyJewsandnon-
Jews.ThementionoftheBaalShemTovis(also)anhistoricalmarker,indicatingthe“tales”
9Ibid.,1a-1b.
31
R.NachmanhasinmindarefromtheyearsfollowingtheBaalShemTov,whenthelatter’s
abilityto“tellitright”diedwithhim.
Thebroadreferenceto“talestheworldtells”underlinesthepoliticaltensionreferencedby
thedisclaimerandinsertscontemporaryquestionsintotheintroductionofthetales.R.
Nachman’sopeningsentencethenproceedstoreintroducethetheological-esoteric
questionalsopresentinthetitlepage.Inthesetales,hesays,“therearemanyhiddenand
veryloftythings.”10ThementionoftheBaalShemTovrelatestothetheological-esoteric
questionaswell,aspartofwhatis“hidden”inthesetalesistheirmysticalpower,whichthe
BaalShemTovknewtobringout.
“But,”continuesR.Nachman,“thetaleshavebeenruinedformuchismissingfromthem,
andalsotheyhavebeenconfusedandarenottoldin[thecorrect]order.”11Mysuggestion
inthecomingchapterwillbetoreadthis“confusion”asrelatingbothtotheepisodicorder
ofthenarrative,andtothepoeticpresentationoftheepisodes.Intheselines,R.Nachman
introduceshisconcernwithliteraryformintothepoliticalandtheologicalquestions
alreadysignaledpreviously.Thebeginning,theproductionofdifference—inSaid’sterms—
ofR.Nachman’stalesistheirreducibilityofhisconcernstoindividualquestionsofpolitics,
theologyoraesthetics.To“mendandunite”byretelling“thetalestheworldtells”isan
activitythatissimultaneouslyandirreduciblypolitical,theologicalandaesthetic.We
shouldkeepinmindthisconstellationofconcernsthroughoutourreadingofthetales.
10Ibid.,1a.11Ibid.
32
AninterestingdiscordthatemergesfromtheintroductiontothetalesisbetweenR.
Nachman’sstatementthatheisreorderingintotheirproperorder,talesthatgotdisordered,
andthewidespreadopinioninresearchonthetalesthatseveralofthemaremissingan
ending.Thesuggestionthatamissingendingispreciselytheproperorderofthenarrative
episodesiswhatwewillpresentlyexplore.
MissingtheEnding
ThereisnodoubtthatallusionstowidespreadworksofCabbalaaboundinR.Nachman’s
writings.12Thetaskofproperlyidentifyingthemandrelatingtheirappearancetotheir
“source”hasoccupiedmanyresearchers,whohavestudiedboththetalesandteachings.13
R.Nachmanhimselfsignalsbothhisfamiliaritywith,andinterestinengagingwithsuch
works.InhiscollectedteachingsLikkuteiMoharan,forinstance,thereareseriesof
12Iamfullyawareoftheironyofthisstatement.Havingjustproblematizedtheexistenceof“TheCabbala”asanobjectofstudy,InowseemtopresumeasimplereferencebyR.Nachmantosuchanobject.Myintentioninchoosingthephrase“widespreadworksofCabbala”istoskirtthequestionofatotalitygreaterthanthesumofthese“works,”byreferringonlytoindividualworksandnot“acorpus.”ItisalsotobracketthequestionofwhetherR.Nachmanhimselfunderstoodtheretobeanysuchcorpusofworksthatcouldbedifferentiatedfromothertextsasforming“TheCabbala.”Itismysense(whichIwillnotelaborateuponhere)thatthewidespread“popularizationoftheCabbala”bytheHasidicmovementincludedthesubsumptionofgenericdistinctions(iftheyexistedtobeginwithamongthe“populous”)betweenthetextsitdrewupon.ForanexampleofJewishEnlightenmentscholarsridiculingthisblurringofgenresbyHasidism,see:JonatanMeirandSamuelWerses,ReshitHokhmah:HiburGanuzBi-GenutahShelHa-Hasidut(Jerusalem:MandelInstituteofJewishStudies,2011),36-37.ThepopularizationofCabbalawaspresentfromtheverybeginningsoftheHasidicmovement;bytheBaalShemTov,see:MurrayJayRosman,FounderofHasidism:AQuestfortheHistoricalBa'alShemTov(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996).;IntherelationbetweenZadikandfollowersinlaterHasidism,see:MosheIdel,HasidismbetweenEcstasyandMagic(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).;Inrelationtotheconflictwithorthodoxy,see:SimonDubnow,AHistoryofHasidism,trans.LedererHelen(Cincinnati1970).13ForthemostcomprehensiveamongthesestudiesofR.Nachman’stales,see:MarianneSchleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2007).
33
teachingsgroupedbytheirreferencetopartsoftheZohar.Inhistalestoo,manystudies
havehighlightedtheseallusions.
SuchidentificationisthemostprominentmethodforinterpretingR.Nachman’stales.This
widespreadmethodhasproducedarathernarrowinterpretiveframe,withinwhichthese
talesareread,namely:allegoricalreading.Thepersistenceofthismethodologyhasboth
limitedtheinterpretiveapproachtothetalesand,insodoing,hasconstitutedthetalesas
“cabbalisticstories.”14Theover-determinationofthemethodofidentification,andits
resultantallegoricalreading,shiftthereader’sfocusfromliteraryanalysistoacorrelation
betweenthetalesandasetof(primarily)cabbalistictropes.
Thecircularlogic—movingfromanassumptionabout“cabbalisticstories”toa
methodologyofidentifyingreferences,whichinturnproduces(orreinforces)the
interpretiveassumptionsaboutthetales’allegoricalreference—isexemplifiedinthe
openingpagesofMarianneSchleicher’sIntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanof
Bratslav.15
SippureyMa’asiyotconsistsofthirteentalesthathavemanytraitsincommon
withfairytales[…]Nevertheless,thesetalesrefusetorevealacoherent
meaningbythemselves,asfairytalesoughttodo[…]Thecontentofthese
14ThisisastrueoftheearliestacademicresearchintothetalesofR.Nachmanasitisofthemostcontemporarystudies.See:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi;YoavElstein,MaasehHoshev:IyunimBa-SipurHa-Hasidi(TelAviv:Eked,1983).Aswellas:Schleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot.AmoreindepthanalysisoftheinterpretivemodesthatstymietheliteraryreadingofR.Nachman’stalescanbefoundin:YitzhakLewis,"RevealingandConcealingasLiteraryDevicesintheTalesofRabbiNachman,or,theCaseoftheMissingEnding"(MAThesis,ColumbiaUniversity,2010).15Schleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot.
34
talesonlybecomesaccessible[…]throughtheinteractionwithexternalsign
systems.16
Thebasicinterpretiveassumptionhereisthatthetalescannotbeunderstoodwithout
identifyingtheirreferenceto“externalsignsystems.”Themethodologicalconclusionis
thatsuchidentification—”intertextuality,”asSchleicherreferstoit—would“reveala
coherentmeaning,”ormake“thecontentofthesetales[…]accessible.”Thisapproachis
whatI’mcallingthe“allegoricalreading”ofthetales.Whatleadsfromtheallegoricaltothe
“cabbalistic”ispreciselytheidentificationofthe“externalsignsystems”as:“imageryfrom
biblicalandrabbinicalliterature,fromvariousmysticaltrends,andparticularlyfromthe
KabbalistictextcorpusSeferhaZohar.”17
Thetheoreticallimitations(andpresumptions)ofsuchanapproacharemany,butI’dlike
tobeginbydemonstratingitspractical,methodologicallimitations.Thebestillustrationof
thiscanbefoundinthewayreadersofR.Nachmanhaveaddressedthequestionofendings
inthetales.JosephDanhasidentifiedtheLurianicredemptionmythastheoverarching
narrative,towhichR.Nachman’stalesmaintainanallegoricalreference.18Intermsofan
over-determinedallegoricalreading,theendofR.Nachman’staleswouldthusrefertothe
“endoftime,”tothe“messianicredemption”thatisthetelosoftheLurianicmyth.19With
16Ibid.,1.17Ibid.,2.Emphasisadded—Y.L.18R.Nachmanisnottheonlyonewhomaintainssuchareference.ThenarrativessurroundingthelifeofShabtaiZviandtheBaalShemTovdoaswell.See:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,Ch.1.19See:ibid.DanfollowstheleadofScholemhere,asdoallotherreaderswhofindtheend“missing.”See:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,Esp.Lecture7.And:TheMessianicIdeainJudaismandOtherEssaysonJewishSpirituality(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1971).
35
suchinterpretivepresumptions,itwillnotsurpriseustofindthatmostreadershave
concludedtheendingsofmanytalesare“yettocome.”
ManyreadersofR.Nachmanhavepaidparticularattentiontowhathascometobeknown
asthe“missingending”ofsomeofthetales.Theseventhtale,forexample,endswithanote
informingusthattheendingwasnotwrittendownproperly.Inthecaseofthethirteenth
tale,itseemsR.Nachmandidnotgetachancetotelltheend,andthetalewaspublished
incomplete.20Butitisthefirsttalewhichismostcommonly—andmostsignificantly—read
asmissingitsending.21Letusreviewthecourseofthenarrativeandthenproceedtosome
existinginterpretationsofthetale.
Intheexposition,akingswearsathisbelovedandonlydaughter,whothenmysteriously
disappears.Theking’sassistantgoessearchingforher.Thebulkoftalefollowstheking’s
assistantonhisquesttosearchfor,andrescue,theking’sdaughter.Twotimestheassistant
locatesthedaughter.Eachtimehereceivesinstructionsfromherastothemethodofher
rescue.Bothtimes,however,hefailstoperformwhatshehasinstructedhim,andshe
remainsincaptivity.Aftertwicefailingtoperformwhatisrequiredofhim,andthus
missingtheopportunityofsavingtheking’sdaughter,hefinallytracksherdownathird
time.Twicehistrialsandfailuresaredescribedindetail,andbothtimesthemomentof
recognitionandthesorrowandregretitengendersarerecountedinfull.Thethirdtime,
20See:NathanSternhartz,SichotHaran(Jerusalem:EvenShtiya,2011[1850]),154.21ThemostsignificantreadersofBraslavliteratureallagreeonthispoint.(ExceptforMarkwhodoesnotdiscussthistale.)See:Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales.Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.YoavElstein,Pa`AmeBatMelekh:HikreTokhenVe-TsurahBe-SipuroHa-RishonShelR.NahmanMi-Braslav(Ramat-Gan:UniversitatBar-Ilan,1984).Green,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav.Piekarz,HasidutBraslav:PerakimBe-HayeMeholelehaUvi-Khetaveha.
36
afteranarduousquestleadingtothediscoveryofherlocation,theking’sassistantarrives
inthecity-fortinwhichsheisbeingheldandbeginstoplanherrescue.Thenarrator
explainsthattheking’sassistantwillneedtoplanwiselythisthirdandmosttryingrescue
ofall.Atthispointthetaleendsabruptly.
InhisreadingofR.Nachman’stalesDanwonders:whyisthestorymissingitsending?22In
hisanswer,Danoffersadistinctionbetweenthreelayers;(1)the“materials”ofthetales,
borrowedfromfolk-talesandthebroaderfolk-cultureofEasternEurope,Jewishandnon-
Jewishalike;23(2)their“content”,thatisthelayerthe“materials”allegoricallyreferto,
whichiscomprisedoftherichworldofcabbalisticsymbolism.Beyondthesetwolayers,
arguesDan,thereistheuniqueexperienceR.Nachmanisexpressingthroughtheartistic
mediumofstorytelling.Themanner inwhich the plot and structure of the talesweave
folk themes and cabbalistic symbolstogetherexpresses(3)the“principal”ofthestory.24
Inordertoanswerthisquestionregardingthemissingendingwemustnotetheinterplay
betweentheselayersinthestructuringofthetale,Danconcludes.
Inthestorybeforeus,themeaningliesintheanswertotwoquestions,which
Iwilltrytoshowarereallyonlyonequestion:Whoistheking’sassistant?
Whyistheendingmissing?Wewillbeginwiththefirstquestion,andI
22Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,140.23WhilemuchresearchhasbeendedicatedtoidentifyingCabbalareferencesinR.Nachman’stales,littleattentionhasbeengiventothefolkloricsourcesfromwhichthesetalesclearlyborrow,andofwhichtheyclearlyformpart.NotableexceptionsareSh.Pitrushka’scomparisonofthefirsttaletoanearlymodernPolishfolktale,see:Sh.Pitrushka,"MakorPolaniLe-"SippureiMa'asiyot"ShelRabbiNachmanMi-Braslav,"Ketuvim42,no.91(1928).AndYoavElstein’sdiscussionofthemotifof“theprincessstuckinthetower,”whichmentionsR.Nachman’sfirsttale,thoughitisabroaderstudyofJewishfolklore.See:YoavElsteinandAvidavLipsker,eds.,3vols.,EntsiklopedyahShelHa-SipurHa-Yehudi:Sipur`OkevSipur(RamatGan:BarIlanUniversity,2004).24See:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,136-40.
37
believeitwillleadustoananswertothesecondquestionaswell.25
The identity of the king’s assistant will answer the question about the missing ending,
anduncovertheconcealedmeaningofthetale.ThequestionDandoesnot answerhere is
inwhatwaywill identifyingtheking’sassistantexplainthe lackofanending?Wemay
suggestitispreciselytheallegoricalnatureofDan’sreadingthatcollapsesthesetwo
questionsintoone.Danconsidersthepossibleallegoricalreferentsofthischaracterand
concludesthatonthelevelof“content”heisthemessiah,whileonthelevelof“principle”
theking’sassistantisR.Nachmanhimself.26Along this line of “cabbalistic”references
Dan also identifies the king’s daughter as theShechina.27
Tofurtheremphasizethesignificanceofthemissingending,Dandrawsattentiontothe
factthatthestorytoldbythesixthbeggarattheendofR.Nachman’sthirteenthtaleis
itselfsimilartothefirsttaleofthecollection.28Themissingending,suggestsDan,isthe
verysameendinginbothcases.Heoffersthatthethirteenthtale,likethefirst,isan
accountofthefalloftheShechinaandthespiritualexileoftheJewishpeopleand,since
redemptionhasyettooccur,R.Nachmancannot finishthenarrative.29YoavElstein
affirmsthisreadingaswell,notingthatthefirsttalewastoldtwice,ontwoseparate
25Ibid.,140.26Thisconclusion(alongwithseveralotherelementsinDan’sreading)isalsobasedonstatementsbyR.Nachman’sfollowers—R.NathanSternhartzandR.NachmanofTscheherin—aboutthemeaningofthistale,andrelatestootherclaimsaboutR.Nachman’smessianicrole,whichheperceivedhimselfasfulfillinginhisgeneration.See:Green,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav.27Unlikethe“split”assistant,thekingsdaughterreferstotheShechinaonboththelevelof“content”and“principle.”Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,141.28Ibid.,167-71.29Thisistrueofboththefirstandthirteenthtale,heclaims(ibid.,171.).Asnotedabove,thereisareportbyR.Nathan,accordingtowhichR.Nachmanintendedtofinishthetale,butdiesbeforedoingso(Sternhartz,SichotHaran,154.).
38
occasions.30Threetimes,then,R.Nachmantellsofthesearchfortheking’sdaughter,that
is,ofthequestforthemessianicredemptionoftheShechina,andthreetimeshecannot
concludethenarrativeforthesearchisstillathand.31
Themajorimplication,whichinsistingonthe“cabbalistic”readingofthetalehasforthe
studentofliterature,shouldbenoted.Itlimitstheappreciationofthemimeticqualityof
thetales.It onlyeverreadsthetalesasare-tellingofwhat(presumably)wasforR.
Nachmanafamiliar“cabbalistically”determinednarrativeabouttherealityhelivedin.
Since “the timeof thefinal[…]implementationoftheredemptiononearthhasnot
arrivedyet,sothefirststory,aswellasthelast,couldnotbeconcluded,”32statesDan.
Thisnarrow“cabbalistic”readingentersintopreciselythekindoftheologicalassumptions
BoazHusscautionsustoavoidinthestudyofJewishMysticism—anattentivenessthat
shouldcertainlybeextendedtothestudyofliteratureaswell.Namely,thatthereisinfacta
(exclusive)mimeticlinkbetweentheLurianicnarrativeofredemptionandtherealityofR.
Nachman’stime(oranytimeforthatmatter).“Justasatheologicalexplanationforphysical
andbiologicalphenomenathatisbasedon[aconceptof]God’swill[…]isnotadmissiblein
academicstudiesofthenaturalsciences,”statesHuss,sotooshouldbethecase“with
theologicalexplanations,accordingtowhichthecauseofcertainhistorical,socialand
30Thisstorywastoldontwoseparateoccasionsin1806,aswellas(asDanhaspointedout)repeatedwithsomevariationintheaccountofthesixthbeggar,toldin1809.Forachronologyoftalesandteachingsaroundthetimeofthefirsttale,see:Elstein,MaasehHoshev:IyunimBa-SipurHa-Hasidi,Ch.6.31ThisinabilitypersistsinspiteofsignificantchangesinR.Nachman’sownexperiencefrom1806to1809,particularlyasfarashismessianicaspirationswereconcerned.See:Green,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav,Ch.5-6.32Dan,"RabbiNahman'sThirdBeggar,"42.[Emphasisadded—Y.L.]
39
culturalphenomenaisanencounterwithdivinity.”33TheclaimthatR.Nachmancouldnot
finishthestory,becauseGodhadnotyetsentthemessiah,ispreciselysuchaclaim.
Beyondtheproblematicliteraryimplicationsofsuchaclaim, in the case of R. Nachman’s
tales this interpretativeassumptionissimplyunjustifiableonseveralcounts.First,it is
clear that R. Nachman was entirely capable of creating literary representations of the
redemptioneventhoughitmaynotyethaveoccurred.AsZviMarkdiscusses,thisis
preciselytheprojectofhis“ScrollofSecrets”34—acreativeandexplicitnarrativeaccount
ofthemessianicredemption.Second,regardingthethirteenthtale,R.Nathantellsof
severaloccasions,inwhichR.Nachmanexpressedhisdesiretotelltheendofthethirteenth
tale,andseemstohavehadtheendalreadyinmind.35Whetherhechosenottotellitor
diedbeforehehadtheopportunitytoisnotsignificanthere.Thepointisthatthe
interpretivelimitsofa“cabbalistic”readingarenottenable,andonlyresultin
methodologicalconstraints.Themainconstraintbeing,thatuponidentifyingtheallegory,
thereaderofthetaleseffectivelystopsreading.
Danpointsouttheallegoricalconnectionofthefirstandsecondfailuresoftheking’s
assistanttothecabbalistic-symboliccharactersofAdamandNoah.36Bothcharactershad
tried,andfailedtobringaboutthemomentofredemption.Theirtrialsarealludedtobythe
33Huss,"TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism,"14.34See:ZviMark,TheScrollofSecretstheHiddenMessianicVisionofR.NachmanofBreslav,trans.NaftaliMoses(Brighton,MA:AcademicStudiesPress,2010).35R.Nathan’sremarksrefertotheendofthebroadernarrativeofthethirteenthtale,nottothesixthbeggar’saccountofthesearchfortheking’sdaughter.See:Sternhartz,SichotHaran,154.36Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,141.
40
trialsinwhichtheking’sassistanthimselffails.37Havingrecognizedtheallegoricalreading
thetalesupports,thereisalmostnoneedtoreadtheaccountofthethirdandfinaltrial.
Cabbalisticconventioncreatestheanticipationthattherecanbenosuchaccount,forthe
messianicredemptionhasyettocome.Andindeed,havingrecognizedtheallusion,Dan’s
readingcomestoanend.
Butwhatdoes thelackofanendingproduceinastory?This reading has drawn our
attention away fromquestions regarding the artformof storytelling and literature.
Questions of this nature have alreadybeenroughlyformulatedbyDan(“whyisthetale
missingitsending?”38)and,fromaliteraryperspective, leftlargelyunanswered.A
discussionof theendingsofR.Nachman’stalesmustbeginwithaclosereadingofthe
endingsthemselves,andtheobservationthathecouldnothavechosenamoreclimactic
momentinwhichtoendthenarrativeofhisfirsttale.
Thelastrescueattemptisnotdescribed,norisitinfactrecountedatallbyR.Nachman.
Onlytheconclusionisgiven:“Andhowherescuedherhedidnottell,andintheendhe
rescuedher.”39Whatwemaynoticeimmediatelyisthatitisnottheendofthenarrative
thatismissing.Thetaleandthenarrativebothendatthesamemoment,themomentin
whichtheking’sassistantrescuestheprincess.IntheYiddish,thefirsthalfofthis
concludingsentenceisinparenthesis,furtheremphasizingthenarrativeflow;theassistant
37Inthefirsttrial,likeAdaminEden,theassistanteatsaforbiddenfruitthatcausesthefailureofhisefforts.Inthesecond,likeNoahaftertheflood,hefallsasleepafterdrinkingwine,whichfrustrateshisattemptatrescuingtheking’sdaughter.38Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,140.39Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,6b.
41
locatestheking’sdaughter,hefindsaplacetoplanherrescue,andfinallyrescuesher.The
endingiscertainlyprovided.Whatismissingistheaccountofhowthisrescueisperformed.
Thetale,recountingindetailthefirsttwofailuresandrelayingthelongarduousjourneyof
locatingtheking’sdaughterathirdtime,hascreatedtheanticipationofamostdetailed
accountofthehero’sfinalsuccess.Thisanticipationisentirelyinlinewiththefolkloric
conventionsR.Nachmanisoperatingwithin.40Recognizingtheliteraryeffectachievedby
breakingwiththeseconventions,itbecomesclearthattheendingofthistaleisnotmissing
butratherprovocativelyanti-climactic.
Everyliteraryexpressionexistswithinacontextofliteraryandsocialconventions,and
derivessomepowerofexpressionfromitsrelationtotheseconventions.Thispointis
neithernewnororiginal,41butitdoessuggestthatourreadingofthetalesmustaccountfor
theirrelationstotheconventionsthattheuseof(toborrowDan’sterms)“material”and
“content”relatesto.Wehavenotedthatabreakfromfolkloricconventioncreatesananti-
climaxattheendofthenarrative.Wemayfurthersuggestthatwhatmayhaveledusto
confusethismissingclimaxforamissingending,pertainsinturntoabreakfrom
cabbalisticconventions.Withthisconventional“cabbalistic”priming,onemayindeedread
themissingclimaxandconfuseitforamissingending,forwearedealingwithaconvention
thatconflatesclimaxwithendinginthemessianicmomentofredemption.
40Conventionalstructuralcomponentsoffolk-literature,suchasaherofacingachallengethreetimes,andsucceedingonthethirdandmostdifficultoccurrenceofall,arefamouslydiscussedby:VladimirPropp,MorphologyoftheFolktale,trans.LaurenceScott(Austin:UniversityofTexas,1968).41Forastudyoftheconventionsof“theending”inmodernHebrewliterature,see:MichalArbel,TamVe-Nishlam?:`AlDarkheHa-SiyumBa-Siporet(Tel-Aviv:ha-Kibutsha-meuhad:KerenYehoshu`aRabinovitsle-omanuyot,2008).
42
Weshouldcertainlykeepinmindthemessianicovertonesofthenarrative.Danandothers
areinsightfullyawareofthefactthatthisendingoffersacommentaryonredemption.42
However,itdoesnotdosobyreproducingtheconventionalLurianicnarrative,butrather
bybreakingitapart—separatingclimaxandending.Redemptionhereisnotthetelosofthe
tale,43butoneofitsliterarytropes.AsOraWiskind-Elperobserves,“questionsof
messianismandredemptionareraised,lessfortheirpersonal,biographicalrelevancethan
fortheirsignificanceasnarrativeelementsthatinvestthetaleswithgreaturgency.”44Asa
trope,redemptionsignalsthefactthatR.Nachman’spressingconcernswithcontemporary
issuesfindexpressioninthetales.
Anti-climacticendingsexistinmosttalesofthecollection,someofwhichhavenotbeen
readasmissingtheirending.Infact,thisseemstobethecharacteristicelement,tosome
degreeoranother,ofnearlyalltheendingsinthecollection.R.Nachman’scharactersare
able,afteryearsofsearching,traveling,failing,struggling,tocompletetheirquestsina
matterofafewshort,fragmentedsentences.Likefolkloricconventions,Cabbalaisnota
bindingallegoricalreferentthatwillfinally“revealacoherentmeaning”inthetales.45It
offersR.Nachmananarrativeconvention,withinwhichtotellhistales.Payingattentionto
thetales’interactionwiththesenarrativeconventions—compliance,breaks,revisions—is
animportantpartofreadingandinterpretingthetales,ofunderstandingtheir“proper
order.”42Fortheclearestdiscussionofthisallegoricallayerseediscussionsofthetalein:Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales.And:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.43AsGreenhassuggested,statingthetalesweremeanttopreparefortheadventofthemessiah.See:Green,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav,Ch.6.44OraWiskind-Elper,TraditionandFantasyintheTalesofRebNahmanofBratslav(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1998),6.45Schleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot,1.
43
APermanentBeginning
Inconjunctionwiththeallegoricalmethodology,therehavebeenanumberofmore
theoreticalarticulationsoftheinterpretiveassumptionsinvolvedintheidentificationof
“cabbalisticstories.”AudryDurchslag,inreviewingseveralofthemajor1970sbooksto
introducethe“cabbalistic”elementsofR.Nachman’stales(includingtwoEnglish
translationsofthetales),states:“beginningsandendsforNahmanhavetodowith
ontologicalandtheologicalpositions,notsyntacticorpoeticones.”46Theironyofthis
statementisthatitpresumessuch“positions”arediscernableinthetranslationsofthe
tales—andnotintheologicalorontologicalpositionsR.Nachmanmayhaveexpressedin
histeachings—wherebeginningsandendsarefirstandforemostaquestionofsyntaxand
poetics.Iwouldlikeatthispointtoproceedtoatheoreticaldiscussionofthepoeticsofthe
anti-climacticending,andinsistonintroducingtheveryquestionswehaveseenDan
neglectandDurchslagtheorizeasirrelevant.
R.Nachmanhasexplicitlyreferredtobeginningsandendsinthe“talestheworldtells”—
andbyhisdeclaredintention,inhisowntales—whenhedescribedthemthus:“theyhave
beenconfusedandarenottoldin[thecorrect]order,forwhatbelongsinthebeginningis
toldattheendandvisaversa.”47Wehavethusfar—inpointingtothediscrepancybetween
46AudriDurchslag,"RabbiNahmanandHisReaders,"Prooftexts2,no.2(1982):224.Durchslag’sreviewincludesArthurGreenandArnoldBand’sbooks,whichwehavementionedpreviously,aswellasAdinSteinsaltz’sbook.See:AdinSteinsaltz,BeggarsandPrayers:AdinSteinsaltzRetellstheTalesofRabbiNachmanofBratslav,trans.YehudaHanegbi(NewYork:BasicBooks,1979).47Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,1a.
44
thisstatementandtheassumptionthatsomeofthetalesaremissingtheirending—
presumedthisconfusiontobeamatterofnarrativecontent,ofdisorderedepisodes.Thisis
whatwehavejustdemonstratedtobefalse—theclaimthattheepisodewemightthinkof
as“theending”isnotinitsplace,attheendofthenarrative.Thereasonforthis
misidentification(orlackofidentification),wehaveargued,ispreciselythemissingpoetics
weassociatewithsuchendings,namely,theclimax.
Whileourabilitytorecognizeanepisodeasanendingiscertainlydeterminedbylogical
connectionsitmaintainswiththepreviousnarrativeflow,itisalsodeterminedbyitsform,
byitssyntaxandpoetics.ThenarrativeconventionsR.Nachmanbreakswithareinfact
primarilypoetic.R.Nachman’santi-climacticendinghascausedustorethinktherelation
betweenredemptionandclimaxbyseparatingtheepisodicredemptionfromthepoetic
climax.Butithasdonemore.Ithasdoneawaywiththeclimaxaltogether.Ithasleftthe
readerwithanticipationforanendingthatwillneverbealleviated.
Alongthelinesoftheallegoricalinterpretationofthetales,readerssuchasDanandGreen
haveidentifiedthisastheanticipationofthemessiah.However,thisidentificationignores
boththefactthatepisodicallythereisnofurtherredemptiontoanticipate,andthatthe
unalleviatedanticipationispoeticallyconstructed.Howarewetounderstandthis
anticipationaspoetics?Twotheoreticaldiscussionswillhelpushere.ThefirstisFriedrich
Schlegel’sdiscussionofIrony.ThesecondisEdwardSaid’sdiscussionofBeginnings.
IronyisatermthatgoesbacktoancientGreekpoetics(eironeia)andhashadalongcareer
45
inWesternpoetictraditions.ButitiswithSchlegelthatthistermismostradically
theorized,andwhosethoughtisthetouchpointformuchofthesubsequentdiscussionsof
irony.48SchlegelwasacontemporaryofR.Nachman,borninHanoverjustafewweeks
beforeR.Nachman.AmajorthinkerofGermanRomanticism,hetheorizedironyasthat
whichrevealsthegapbetweenlanguageandtheworld,thehumanspiritandhuman
historicalexistence.ForthepresentargumentIwillfocusonthepoetic-textualaspectsof
thisgap.Inhisessay“OnIncomprehensibility,”49Schlegelenumeratesthekindsofpoetic
ironyonefindsinwrittenworksofliterature.“Finally,thereistheironyofirony,”50he
concludes.Thisisthemomenttheawarenessofthegapbetweenlanguageandtheworld,
theinabilityofexpressiontocaptureexperience,foldsuponitself—themomentthe
awarenessofthegaploosesitsgriponthegapofwhichitisaware,andthegapagainslips
pasttheabilitytoexpressitintotheverygapexpressioncannottraverse.Whatdoesthis
looklikeinpoetic-textualterms?
PauldeManexplainsthatforSchlegel,ironyisthetropethatdisruptsconventionpar
excellence.Itdesignatesbothakindandanintensityofnarrativebreak,whichSchlegel
terms“parabasis.”Parabasisisapoetictermthatdenotesapauseinthenarrative.
WhatSchlegelreferstoisthedisruptionofnarrativeillusion,theaparté,the
asidetotheaudience,bymeansofwhichtheillusionofthefictionisbroken
[…]Thetechnicaltermforthisinrhetoric,thetermthatSchlegeluses,is
48See:JohannPillai,"Irony,Romantic,"inEncyclopediaoftheromanticera,1760-1850,ed.ChristopherJohnMurray(London:Routledge,2003).49FriedrichvonSchlegel,FriedrichSchlegel'sLucindeandtheFragments,trans.PeterFirchow(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1971).50Ibid.,267.
46
parabasis.Parabasisistheinterruptionofadiscoursebyashiftinthe
rhetoricalregister.51
Schlegelalreadycovered(ingreaterdetail)thistaxonomyofdisruptionsin“On
Incomprehensibility.”Theironyofirony—themomentexpressioncannolongerexpress
itselfassuch—ismorethananaside.Itisapermanentdisruption.
Parabasisisnotenough,forSchlegel.Ironyisnotjustaninterruption;itis
(andthisisthedefinitionwhichhegaveofirony),hesays,the“permanent
parabasis,”parabasisnotjustatonepointbutatallpoints.52
R.Nachman’sendingiscertainlyadisruption—ofconventions,ofnarrativeflow.Wehave
alreadydiscussedthat.InR.Nachman’stale,thelackofa(poetic)climaxmakesthe
suspensionofthenarrationmoreofaninterruptionthananend.However,the(episodic)
end-momentguaranteestherewillbenootherfutureendtothisinterruption.Inthissense,
endingthestorywithsuchapauseproducespermanentparabasis,theindefinite
postponementofanynarrativehorizon.
51PaulDeMan,"TheConceptofIrony,"inAestheticIdeology,ed.AndrzejWarminski(Minneapolis;London;London:UniversityofMinnesotapress,1997),178.52Ibid.,178-79.DeManreferences“permanentparabasis”as:“‘DieIronicisteinepermanenteParekbase.—’;Schlegel,‘ZurPhilosophic’(1797),Fragment668,inPhilosophischeLehrjahreI(1796-1806),ed.ErnstBehler,inK.A.(Paderborn-Vienna-Munich:VerlagFerdinandSchoningh,1963),18:85.”(ibid.,179,ff.20.)SchlegelisamajortheoristofGermanRomanticism,whohasbeenwidelydiscussed,instudiesfromHegeltoHamacher.Myadmittedlynarrowinterestinironyinthepresentdiscussionliesintheideaof“permanentparabasis”andthepoeticmise-en-abymeitisabletocapture,betweenthelimitsofexpressionandtheexpressionoflimits.See:WernerHamacher,Premises:EssaysonPhilosophyandLiteraturefromKanattoCelan(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2000).ForabibliographyofcriticalsourcesonSchlegel,see:AllenSpeight,"FriedrichSchlegel,"inTheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,ed.EdwardN.Zalta(2011).
47
“Thedisruptionofnarrativeillusion”53inR.Nachman’staleisalsoofthenarrativeillusion
thatatalestartsatthebeginningandproceedstoanend.“Whatbelongsatthebeginningis
toldattheendandvisaversa,”54R.Nachmanhasobserved.Hisintroductorystatement
invitesafurtherreflection.Whatwoulditlookliketore-placethebeginningandendofa
tale?Thethoughtofabeginningthathasbeensubstitutedforanendingshouldleadusto
questionourvery(conventional)abilitytodistinguishbetweenanendandabeginning.
Whilerecognizing“theend”maybebasedontheconventions,withinwhichweresolveto
readatale,identifyingabeginninginvolvesassumptionsaboutourrelationtowritingthat
precedeourencounterwithaparticularnarrative.“Writingistheunknown,orthe
beginningfromwhichreadingimaginesandfromwhichitdeparts,”55statesSaid.Hereis
theargumentaboutR.Nachman’s“correction”tothetalestheworldtells:re-placing
beginningsandendscreatesnarrativesthat(episodically)endatthe(poetic)beginning,at
theunknownfromwhichthereaderdeparts—mustdepart,andyetcannotdepart.
Said’sdifferentiationbetweentwotypesofbeginningscanhelpusfurtherhere.Most
beginningsaretransitive,explainsSaid,thatis,theyarebeginningsofsomething,the
departurefromwhichleadstosomething.Thistransitivityalsorelatestotheintention
ascribed(orpresumed)atthebeginning.
Theconcept“beginning”isassociatedineachcasewithanideaof
precedenceand/orpriority[…]Inshort,thedesignationofabeginning
generallyinvolvesalsothedesignationofaconsequentintention[…]I
53DeMan,"TheConceptofIrony,"178.54Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,1a.55Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,74.
48
introduceasecondsortofbeginning,onethathasnointentionotherthan
simplytobeabeginninginthesenseofbeingfirst.56
ThesecondsortofbeginningSaidintroducesiswhathecallsan“intransitivebeginning.”
Thefactofcallingthat-which-is-firsta“beginning”alreadyassumestransitivityand
attemptstorecognizeinitanintention.Todifferentiatebeing-firstfromsuchtransitivity,
Saidunderstandsanintransitivebeginningas“onethathasnointentionotherthansimply
tobeabeginninginthesenseofbeingfirst.”57Thesetwosortsofbeginningscannotbe
isolatedfromoneanotherandareinfacttwo“aspects”ofanypointofdeparture,the
interplayofwhichiswhereSaid’sinterestslie.
Thepointofdeparture[…]hastwoaspectsthatanimateoneanother.One
leadstotheprojectbeingrealized:thisisthetransitiveaspectofthe
beginning—thatis,beginningwith(orfor)ananticipatedend,oratleast
expectedcontinuity.Theotheraspectretainsforthebeginningitsidentityas
radicalstartingpoint:theintransitiveandconceptualaspect,thatwhichhas
noobjectbutitsownconstantclarification.58
Certainlyitishardtodistinguishthefactofbeingfirstfromitsbeingthebeginningofwhat
follows.Unless,ofcourse,nothingfollows,becauseweare,infact,attheend—anendthat
hasbeenre-placedwithabeginning.ThepoeticsofR.Nachman’staledestabilizesthe
relationofRedemptionto“ending,”thewaySaid’sprojectattemptstodestabilizethe
relationofOriginto“beginning.”
56Ibid.,4-5.57Ibid.58Ibid.,72-73.
49
DisruptingtheLurianicnarrativeconventionwouldthrowthereaderintotheredemptive
moment,themomentthatisconventionallymaintainedastheunattainablehorizonofthe
narrative.This,wehaveargued,couldtakeontwoforms:episodicandpoetic.Thefirst
wouldbetonarratetheepisodethat“cannot”(toborrowDan’sword)benarrated,the
post-messianicmoment.R.NachmandidthisinhisScrollofSecrets.59Nosucheffortmarks
thetalescollectedinSippureyMa’asiyot.Instead,talessuchas“TheMissingPrincess”throw
thereaderintoamomentofpoeticuncertainty,transformingthequestion“howisthis
goingtoend?”intoanintransitivebeginning.60
Understoodintermsofa“permanentparabasis,”atwhichpointthenarrativeillusionof
redemption-as-endingisirreparablybroken,atwhichpointredemptionhasarrived,but
only(andpermanently)episodically.Thedisruptionofthisillusionendsthetaleatthe
beginning-momentofredemption—anintransitivebeginningwithnodiscerniblehorizon
orintention.Itisapointofdeparturewithnoclearintentionorpossibilityofdeparture.
Whatifoneknewtherewasno“atleastexpectedcontinuity”61tohopefor,andyethadno
choicebuttodepart,tobegin?Thisisthechallengeinthenextpairoftaleswewillread,
whichexploresthenarrativelimitsofR.Nachman’s“poeticsofintransitivity.”
59See:Mark,TheScrollofSecretstheHiddenMessianicVisionofR.NachmanofBreslav.Thisimaginativeandhighlyspeculativetextdeservesitsownliteraryanalysis,whichiswellbeyondthescopeofthepresentproject.60InLurianicterms,thearchetypalendistheredemption,whichisalwaysunknown.(See:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi,Ch.1.)“Thearchetypalunknownisthebeginning,”Saidmightretort.(Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,78.)61Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,72.
50
PoeticsofIntransitivity
InourinitialdiscussionofR.Nachman’sintroductiontoSippureyMa’asiyot,weoutlinedthe
constellationofpolitical,theologicalandaestheticconcernsinhistales.Indiscussingthe
firsttaleandthe“anti-climacticending”wehavedealtwiththetheologyandpoeticsofthe
tale.WecomenowtoadiscussionofR.Nachman’ssocio-politicalconcerns.Twostories,
“TheParableoftheWheat”and“TheParableoftheTurkey,”62willservetodemonstrate
thewaytheselatterconcernsarerepresentedthroughhis“poeticsofintransitivity.”
R.Nachman’slifewasatumultuoustimeinEurope.Tothewest,theFrenchRevolutionand
theNapoleonicconquestswiththeforcedEmancipationtheypromised.Totheeast,the
threedivisionsofthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealth,whichcarvedoutthePaleof
Settlement,followedbytheRussianTsaristreforms.Kingsweresubjectedtohuman,social
conventionandhadtoanswertotheemergingentity“thepeople.”Thepeople,inturn,
weresubjectedtotheenlightenmentdemandsofprogressthrougheducation.Thislatteris
exemplifiedbytheTsaristReformsof1804,whiletheformercanbeseenintwohistorical
events;TheexecutionofLouisXVIandthemadnessofGeorgeIII.Thesewerebynomeans
discreetoccurrences.Theemancipationofthepeoplewasaccompaniedbynewformsof
constraint,andareorganizationofthesociallimitsthatdeterminedinclusionandexclusion.
Inthefollowingtales,R.Nachmanengagescontemporaryquestionsregardingthe
62ZviMark,ed.KolSipureRabiNahmanMi-Braslav:Ha-Ma`Asiyot,Ha-SipurimHa-Sodiyim,Ha-HalomotVeha-Hezyonot(Jerusalem,Israel:MosadBialik;Yedi`otSefarim;Bayit-YetsirahIvrit,2014),409-11.[Thetranslationsaremine—YL.]RegardingtheattributionoftheseshortparablestoR.Nachman,see:ibid.,40-45.
51
widespreadsocialchangeshewitnessed.Inhisrepresentationofsuchchanges,heemploys
themetaphorofmadness.Thisisnotahaphazardmetaphor.AsMichelFoucaultargues,
analyzingthechangingideasfrom“thegreatconfinement”63tothe“moraltreatment,”64
shiftingattitudestowardsmadness,rethinkingitsdefinitionandtreatments,wasaprocess
intimatelylinkedtotheemergenceofthosenewlimitsthatconstitutedtheemancipated
society.65
Reconceiving“madness”wasonlyonesymptomofabroaderandquiteforcefulepistemic
shiftthatwastakingplaceduringR.Nachman’slife66—theshifttoaneworderof
representation,whichwouldparadigmaticallyreconfiguretherelationbetweenthe
monarchyand“thepeople.”In“TheParableoftheWheat,”R.Nachmantellsthetaleofa
king,“thepeople”andanapproachingmadness.Hereisthetextinfull:
Thatoncethekingsaidtohisbelovedviceroy:“WhenIgazeinthestarsIsee
thatallthewheatthatwillgrowthisyear,whoevereatsfromitwillgomad.67
Thereforeadvisemewhatweshoulddo.”
Theviceroyanswered:“Thereforeweshouldpreparewheatinadvance,so
63See:MichelFoucault,DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison,1stAmericaned.(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1977).64See:HistoryofMadness,trans.JeanKhalfa(NewYork:Routledge,2006).65Seealso:TheHistoryofSexuality,1stAmericaned.(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1978).66“Theclearestavailableexampleofsuchepistemicviolenceistheremotelyorchestrated,farflung,andheterogeneousprojecttoconstitutethecolonialsubjectasOther.ThisprojectisalsotheasymmetricalobliterationofthetraceofthatOtherinitsprecariousSubjectivity.ItiswellknownthatFoucaultlocatesepistemicviolence,acompleteoverhauloftheepisteme,intheredefinitionofsanityattheendoftheEuropeaneighteenthcentury.ButwhatifthatparticularredefinitionwasonlyapartofthenarrativeofhistoryinEuropeaswellasinthecolonies?Whatifthetwoprojectsofepistemicoverhaulworkedasdislocatedandunacknowledgedpartsofavasttwo-handedengine?”See:GayatriChakravortySpivak,"CantheSubalternSpeak?,"inMarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture,ed.CaryNelsonandLawrenceGrossberg(Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1988),280-81.67Thisnarrativeisafamiliartropeinfolklore,thoughtusuallyittellsofapoisonedwellratherthatwheat.Thedifferencesbetweenvariousversionsofthistropewillnotinterestushere.AstudentoffolkloremayfindinterestintrackingthecoursealongwhichthistropereachedR.Nachman.
52
thatwedon’thavetoeatfromthemaddeningwheat.”
Andthekinganswered:“Ifso,whenwealonedon’tgomad,andtheentire
worldwillgomad,thenitwillbetheopposite,thatwewillbethemadmen,
[andwecannotprepareenoughforeveryone,]thereforewewillcertainly
havetoeatfromthewheataswell,justthisthatweshouldmakeamarkon
ourforeheadsothatweknowinanyeventthatwearemad.SothatwhenI
seeyourforeheadandyouseemyforeheadwewillknowbythemarkthat
wearemad.”
Thekingandhisviceroyarethecharactersthatoccupythecenterofthenarrative,and
theirpeculiarconversationisthemainevent.Whilethenarrativeisconcentratedonthe
eventoftheir(present)conversation,therearetwoothereventsinthistaleaswell.Inthe
pastthereistheeventoftheking’sstargazingandprediction,andinthefuturethereisthe
impendingmadness.Thekingfeelshemustprepareforthisbizarrefutureeventandseeks
hisviceroy’sadvice.
Theviceroy’sanswerissensible.Hesuggeststhekingstockpilefoodsotheydon’thaveto
eatfromthemaddeningwheat.Fortheviceroythereareonlytwocharactersinthistale,
thekingandhimself.Andthereareonlytwoeventswithwhichhemustengage,theking’s
predictionandthepresentconversation.Theviceroy’sanswerisnoteventhatoftheOld
Regime.“Letthemeatcake,ormaddeningwheat,it’sofnoconsequencetous,”hemight
havesaid,butthereseemstobeno“them”thatheisawareof.
53
Fortheking,however,thereisanothercharactertothistaleanditisprecisely“them”—
”theentireworld,”everyone,allthosewhowilleatthewheat—andtheycannotbeignored.
Theimpendingmadnessisalsotheimpendingemergenceofthisthirdcharacterasa
character.InShortVoyagestotheLandofthePeople68JacquesRancieresamplesthe
emergenceofthenewcharacter“thepeople”intheliteratureofsomeofR.Nachman’sbest-
knownnon-Jewishcontemporaries,andsuggestsitisalsotheemergenceofaneworderof
representation.Whatcharacterizesthisneworderisaformofrelativitythatreconfigures
thelimitsofsocialinclusioninsuchaway,thatagroupofpeasantsmightbeconsolidated
politicallyas“thepeople”andinliteratureasacharacter.69
ForthekingofR.Nachman’staleaswell,themaddeningwheat—throughwhich“thosethat
haveeatenfromit”willemergeasanewcharacterinthetale—isnotonlytheheraldofan
ageofmadness,butofanewsocialandrepresentationalorder,towhichhemightfind
himselfontheoutside.Itisworthpausingforamomenttoconsidertherelationofthis
particulartaleabouttheemergenceof“theentireworld”asthecharacterofatale,tothe
broaderprojectofstorytellingthatR.Nachmanintroducedashisintentionto“correct”the
talesthat“theworld”tells.The“correction”isbroaderthanarearrangementofepisodes;
broaderstillthanthepoeticsubstitutionofbeginningsforendings;itistheprojectof
retellingthefamiliarfolkloricandcabbalisticnarrativesoftheageofmonarchicorder
(socialandrepresentational),of“translating”themintotheneworderofrepresentation—
theorderof“thepeople,”whichhe(liketheking)seesemerging.“Thetalestheworldtells”
68JacquesRanciere,ShortVoyagestotheLandofthePeople(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2003).69“WethePeople,”thespeakingsubjectoftheU.S.DeclarationofIndependenceisaparticularlynotablemomentintheemergenceofthischaracter.
54
mustbere-orderedintoanorderthatrepresentstheirtellerastheirmaincharacter,as
“theworld.”
Thisprojectisinvestedwithsomeurgency,astheimpendingordercannotbeavoided.One
cannotavoideatingthenewwheat,concludestheking.Themadnessisimpending,thenew
characterisemergingandwithitanewsocialorderinwhich“everyone”determinesthe
borders.ThekingrealizeswhatLouisXVImighthaverealizedundertheguillotine,or
GeorgeIIIunderthewatchfuleyeofamad-doctor;inthisageofmadnessandsocial
emancipationthebordershaveshiftedandnoonecanaffordtoignore“thepeople.”A
momentbeforethisneworderemerges,thekingwishestoprepare,andthisiswhereR.
Nachman’sinnovativethoughtismostclearlyexpressed.Itistheideathatonemightbe
abletoprepareforsuchacomingage.
Buthowdoesoneprepareforsuchanage?“Wewillcertainlyhavetoeatfromthewheatas
well,”answerstheking.Thosethathaveeatenfromitwillsoonbecomethemaincharacter.
Thosethathavenotwillbeexcludedasmad.Theking’sadvantageinthistaleliesinthis
verycapacitytoprepare.“Thepeople”donotsharetheking’spremonitorystargazing.
Theyhavenopartinthetale’spastevent,sinceitprecedestheiremergenceaspartofthe
tale.Itseemstheywillnotknowtheyhaveallgonemad,sincetheywillnothaveexistedas
“thepeople”priortothatmoment.Theking’sforeknowledgeiswhatallowshimtoprepare,
anditistheonlydifferencefromhis(present)worldthatmayhaveanybearinguponthe
neworder.
55
Inpoeticterms,thetaleinwhichthekingisthemaincharacterisheadedtowardsasimilar
conclusionas“TheTaleoftheMissingPrincess.”Thenarrativeleadstowardsanend-
climax,theveryrealizationofwhichwouldundoitsclimacticnature,turning“theend”into
aninaccessiblepastmoment,andthrowing“theworld”intoitsbeginning.Theforeseeable
futureofthetaleendsatthere-ordering(sociallyandrepresentationally)oftheworld.The
shiftbetweenordersofrepresentation,whichiscoming“attheend,”istheend.Itcannot
bereversed.Itirreparablybreakstheillusionofthenarrativeinwhichthekingisthemain
character.Thisnarrativereachespermanentparabasis.
Andyetthereisapointofdepartureinview.Apointofdeparturethatisdefinedbythe
inaccessibilityofapriormoment,fromwhichonecannotimagineabeginning,butfrom
whichonemustbegin.Itistheintransitivebeginningofanarrativethathasnotyet
begun—thatcannotbeginfromthistale’sorderofrepresentation—anarrativeinwhich
“thepeople”arethemaincharacter.Thisfuturenarrativeasa“pointofdeparture”(in
Said’sterms70),itstransitivebeginningas“producingdifference,”71isfirstandforemostthe
productionofadifferencefromitselfasbeginning.
Thepreparationthekingsuggestsisasstrangeastherestofthecircumstances:“We
shouldmakeamarkonourforeheadsothatweknowinanyeventthatwearemad,”he
suggests.Thenatureofthemarkisunclear.Itcertainlyinvokesseveralpossibilitiesfrom
Jewishtextualsources:itmayrefertothemarkofCain72ortophylacteries.73However,
70Citedaboveandin:Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,60.71Ibid.,xvii.72See:Genesis4:15
56
whatIwanttoemphasizeheregoesbeyondtheambiguityofthemark,oritspossible
textualreferents.Whattheking’ssolutionsignalsisthepossibilityofasharedknowledge
betweentwopeople,eveninthemidstofthemadness.Themadmanmaynotknowheis
mad,buthewillstillbeabletolookatanother(mad)personandrecognizethattheyhave
somethingincommon.
R.Nachmangivesnoclueastothecontentofthesign,thusplacinghisreadersinthesame
positionasthepost-madnesskingwillfindhimself.Hewillnolongeridentifyanymeaning
inthesign.Asamadmanhemaynotevenrememberhowitwascreated,orthatiteverhad
abeginning.Thekingwillunderstandnothingmorethanthathesharesitwithanother,
andthatispreciselytheimportanceofthesign.Theking’ssuggestionisapoeticone:to
marktheinaccessibilityofapriormomentatthebeginning,asthebeginning.This
inaccessibilityofapriormomentisthebeginningofthenextstorywewillread,whereR.
Nachmanexploresthepropositionofcreatingsharedknowledgeandmutualrecognitionin
arealityofmadness.Hereisthetextof“TheParableoftheTurkey”infull:
Onceaprincewentmad,andbelievedhewasaturkey[calledHindik74],and
thathehadtositnakedunderthetableanddragpiecesofbreadandbones
likeaturkey.Andallthedoctorsgaveuphopeofhelpinghimandcuringhim
ofthis,andthekingwasverydistressed.
Onedayawise-mancameandsaid:“Itakeituponmyselftocurehim.”And
hestrippedhimselfnakedaswellandsatunderthetablebytheprince,and73See:Deuteronomy6:874ThisisthewordforTurkeyinYiddish
57
alsodraggedpiecesofbreadandbones.
Theprinceaskedhim:“Whoareyouandwhatareyoudoinghere?”
Andthewise-mananswered:“Andwhatareyoudoinghere?”
Theprincesaid:“I’maturkey.”
Thewise-manresponded:“I’maturkeytoo.”
Theysattogetherthusforatimeuntiltheygrewaccustomedtoeachother.
Thenthewise-mangesturedandtheywerethrownshirts,andthewise-man
turkeysaidtotheprince:“Doyouthinkaturkeycan’twearashirt?Youcan
wearashirtandstillremainaturkey.”Andtheybothputonshirts.
Sometimelaterthewise-mangesturedandtheywerethrownpants.Andhe
saidthesamethingagain:“Doyouthinkaturkeycan’twearpants?Etc.”And
theybothputonpants.Andsohedidwiththeotheritemsofclothing.
Thenhegesturedandtheywerethrownhumanfoodfromthetable,andhe
said:“Doyouthinkthatifoneeatsgoodfood,thatoneisnolongeraturkey?
Youcaneatandstillremainaturkey.”Andsotheyate.Thenhesaid:“Doyou
thinkaturkeymustremainunderthetable?Youcanbeaturkeyandsitat
thetable.”
Andsohetreatedhimuntilhecuredhimcompletely.
Thistalebeginswithaneventof“goingmad.”Theking’ssongoesmadandbelievesheisa
58
turkey.Readingthesetwotalesofmadnessinconjunction,wemayimmediatelysignalthe
ambiguityofthisopeningscene.Thereisnomentionofanyeventanteriortothatofthe
prince’sgoingmad.Withnopasttoreferto,thereader(unlikethepreviousking)isunable
toprepareforthismadness.Keepinginmindthepreviousking’ssensitivity,wemust
recognizetheambiguityofasituationinwhichonemanisperceivedasmadby“everyone”
andask:hastheprincereallygonemad,orhas“everyone”exceptforhimgonemad?Has
anentirekingdomofturkeyseatenfromsomemaddeningwheatandbegunthinkingthey
areallhuman?Isthemadprinceintheverysituationthekingfromtheprevioustale
wishedtoavoid?
Wecannotknow.Forthetaletobegin,wemustpresumesuchapastmoment,inwhichthe
princewasnotmad,andthatsuchamomentisinaccessiblefromwithinthenarrative.Its
markassuchisthepointofdepartureforthistale.Withablinkofthereader’seye,across
theblankspaceonthepagethatseparatesthesetwotalesinthebook,anintransitive
beginninghasbeendemarcated.Betweenthegoing-madthatistocomeandagoing-mad
thathasalreadypassed,thereistheintransitivespaceofapermanentbeginning.The
impossibilityofamomentafterandtheimpossibilityofamomentbeforeconverge
betweenstories.Itisthepointofdeparturethatcannotbearticulatingas/inwriting,only
demarcatedbyapoeticsofintransitivity.
Yet,withtheopeninglineofthesecondstory,wehavealreadydeparted.Avoyageintothe
orderof“thepeople”hassetforth.Ithaslandedthereaderunderatable,byaprincewho
sitsnaked,behavinglikeaturkey.Alltheking’sdoctorsareunabletocurehim,untila
59
wise-manshowsupandtakesituponhimself.Thewise-man’sbehaviorissurprising.
Insteadofapproachingtheprincefromapositionofauthority(thewayadoctormaybe
expectedtodo)heundresseshimselfandjoinsthepriceunderthetable.Totheprince’s
surprise,thewise-manintroduceshimselfasafellowturkey.
Anoteisinorderatthispointofourreading,regardingthedepictionofmadnessinthese
tales.Tobeclear,thisisnotthemadnessdiscussedbyMark,75whichisusedtofashionthe
Baal-Shem-Tov’scharacterinhishagiographyShivcheiHaBesht.76Itisnotonethatcanbe
curedbydoctorsordrivenoutbyexorcists.Thismadnessisnotincompetitionwith
spiritualauthorities,thewaymadmeninShivcheiHaBeshtcompetewiththeBaal-Shem-
Tovforprovidingsupernaturalservicestothecommunity.77Thisisalsonotthemadness
usedinR.Nachman’steachingstodepictecstaticspiritualaccomplishments.Mark
characterizesthespiritualachievementsdepictedasmadnessinR.Nachman’steachingsas
relatedtoalackofreasonthatenablesecstasy.78Inthistaleitispreciselythroughthe
retentionofthefacultyofreasonthatthewise-manisableto“reason”withtheprinceand
75ZviMark,MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav(London;NewYork;[Jerusalem]:Continuum;ShalomHartmanInstitute,2009).76FirstpublishedthesameyearasR.Nachman’stales(1815),ShivcheiHaBeshtisthehagiographyofR.YisraelBaalShemTov,thefounderofHasidism.77See:Mark,MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav,Ch.1.R.Nachmantooexpressesviewsofmadnessasreprehensiblesocialdevianceinhisteachings:“Foronewhotransgressesismad,asoursageshavesaid(Sota3):Onedoesnottransgressunlessheispossessedbyaspiritoffoolishness.Andjustasthemadneedtobebeatenandtreatedwithamulets,sotheTorahislikesticksandamulets,withwhichonebeatsandsubduesevilinclination,anddrivesoutmadnessandthespiritoffoolishness.”(NachmanofBraslav,LikkuteiMoharan,vol.1(Ostroh1808),1:1.)Allthemoresothecontrastbetweenthisrathermedievalnotionof“cure,”wherebythemadmanisbeatenandtreatedwithamulets,andthenotionof“cure”expressedinthistale.78See:Mark,MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav,Ch.2.WhileMarkisobservantinpointingoutR.Nachman’sidentificationofalackofreasonwithmadness,R.Nachmandoesmorereadilyofferphysiological(ratherthanmystical)accountsofthis:“Andwhentherearenooilsinthebody,themindcannotlightupwithobservation,andthatishowmadmencometobe,thatthehumorsofthebodydryup,andthatruinsthebrain,foritdoesnothaveoilstoburn.”(Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,60:3.)
60
curehim.Thewise-man’ssurprisingbehaviorimpliesbothapowerdynamicsanda
conceptionofmadnessmuchclosertoPhilippePinel’s“moraltreatment”thantoany
demonologicalunderstanding.79
Inthistale,madnessisdepictedasthelackofasharedknowledge,andastheprince’s
inabilitytorecognizethepossibilityofhavingsomethingincommonwith“everyone.”This
isthepointatwhichthewise-man’streatmentbegins—thepropositionthatthereis
somethingincommonbetweenhimselfandtheprince.Buildingonthestabilityofthis
sharedknowledge(“wearebothturkeys”),theprinceislesswearyofthepossibilityofa
sharedcommonalitywith“everyone.”Heslowlyagreestodresslikeeveryone,andeatlike
everyone,andcomeoutfromunderthetablelikeeveryone.Andsoon“untilhecuredhim
completely,”saysthenarrator.
Thequestionremains:inwhatsensedidthewise-man“cure”theprince?Itseemsthe
princestillbelievesheisaturkey,andthathewillremainaturkeyindefinitely,in-spiteof
hissharedcommonalitywitheveryone.Thewise-man’slessonisdoubleedged.Ontheone
hand,heshowstheprincethatthepossibilityofhavingsomethingincommonwith
everyoneisnotthreatening.Inthatsensethewayoutoftheprince’smadness(orinto
everyoneelse’smadness)istoembracethispossibility.Ontheotherhand,theknowledge
theprincecomestosharewiththewise-manisthatnomatterwhatformtheytake,these
commonalitieswillneverchangethefactthattheyareturkeys.Intheambiguousrealityof
79FormoreonPinelandthe“moraltreatment”,see:Foucault,HistoryofMadness.FormoreondemonologicalunderstandingsofmadnessintheJewishTraditions,see:Mark,MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav.
61
madness,thecureseemstolieasmuchinstrengtheningtheprince’ssenseofturkey-self,
asinweakeninghisaversiontoacollectivenorm.Theprinceandthewise-manformthe
relationproposedbythepreviousking,theycometosharetheknowledgeoftheirmadness.
Throughthesharedknowledgethattheyareturkeys(andwillremainso),theyareableto
adapttothecollectivemadnessofasocietythatbelievestheyareallhumans.
But,wemightobject,thewise-mandoesn’treallybelieveheisaturkey.Nordidhe“really”
curetheprince.ThisobjectionhitsuponthecentralquestionR.Nachman’stalesof
madnessraise.Whatwouldcountas“curing”theprince?Iftheonlyacceptableansweris:
thementallyinvasiveprocedureofalteringtheprince’sthoughtsabouthisself,ofgetting
himto“really”nolongerbelieveheisaturkey,thenthisdepictionofmadnessisindeed,as
Marksuggests,aturningpointinthehistoryofmadnessinJewishsociety.Asmuchsoand
forthesameconsiderationsasPinel’s“moraltreatment”wasaturningpointinthehistory
ofmadnessintheageofenlightenment.However,inthatitpostulatesthemadnessofthe
princeasopposedtothatof“everyone”ratherthanaspartofit,thisanswerfallsshortof
appreciatingthereciprocallinksR.Nachman’sparablesdepict,inrepresentingthese
momentsas“madness,”betweenmomentsofsocialre-organizationandtheambiguous
distinctionofindividualandcollective.
Thisisalsothebeginningofananswertotheformerobjection.Whetherornotthewise-
manbelievesheisaturkeyisirrelevanttohiscure.Theambiguityofthesituationisalso
thatofthewise-man’ssenseofself.Forthepurposeofcuringtheprince,hemaywellhave
beenaturkeyaswell.Thenarratorcertainlyneverexplicitlyresolvesthisquestion.But
62
moreover,withinthesetales’efforttoapprehendtherelativityofthissituation,wemay
proposethatansweringthefollowingquestion—didthewise-manreallycuretheprince,or
didheonlyfooleveryoneelseintothinkingtheprincewascured?—isimpossibletoanswer.
Andthisimpossibilityispreciselywhatallowsthisdepictionofmadnesstocapturethe
characteroftheneworderof“thewholeworld”R.Nachmanisconcernedwith.Inthat
sense,thewise-man’ssolutionwasnevermeanttobeacureformadness.Itisasolution
forexistingwithintheageofmadnesspredictedbythepreviousking,withintheneworder
ofrepresentation.Itisbothaliterary-criticaldepictionoftheimpossibilityofdetermining
(withinthisage)betweenoneking’smadnessand“everyone”else’smadness,anditisa
proposalforcopingwiththisimpossibility.
Readtogether,thesetalesoutlineR.Nachman’sanxietyaboutthetransitionfromthe
traditionalistsocietyhegrewupinintotheemancipatedsocialordersweepingtheEurope
ofhistime.Thetransitionmomentitselfisnevernarrated.Itliesbetweenanendthatisnot
RedemptionandabeginningthatisnotOrigin.R.Nachmanrepresentsitasanintransitive
beginning,amomentthatcannotbetraversedandyetfromwhichonemustdepart.This
pointofdepartureisnotparticulartoR.Nachman’stime.Borgeswritesintheconclusionto
hisessay“TheArgentinaWriterandTradition:”“Wecannotconfineourselvestowhatis
ArgentineinordertobeArgentinebecauseeitheritisourinevitabledestinytobe
Argentine,inwhichcasewewillbeArgentinewhateverwedo,orbeingArgentineisamere
affectation,amask.”80BorgestryingtobeArgentineandtheprincetryingtobehumanare
facedwithasimilarsetofimpossibilities.Fromwheredoesonedepart?Howdoesone
80JorgeLuisBorges,SelectedNon-Fictions,trans.EliotWeinberger(NewYork:Viking,1999),427.
63
begintobehuman,Jewish,Argentine?InthenextchapterwewillseeScholemandBuber
representthisimpossibilityofbeginningasaparticularproblemof“cabbalisticwriting.”
HisreadingofScholemandBuberwillhelpBorgesformulatehisownroleasawriter.
64
Chapter2:
AGameofInheritance
Borgeshimselfentertainedtheideaofhis“Jewishinheritance,”beforemuchofthe
academicstudyofhisJewishinfluencesbegan.In“Yo,Judio,”therebuttalofaccusations
abouthisconcealedJewishancestry(thetitlealreadysuggeststhisgameofinheritance)he
states:“Whohasnot,atonetimeoranother,playedwiththoughtsofhisancestors,withthe
prehistoryofhisfleshandblood?Ihavedonesomanytimes,andmanytimesithasnot
displeasedmetothinkofmyselfasJewish.”1Thoughinthisletterheadmitsnotfinding
Jewishancestry,heneverstoppedplayingwiththetheme,withstatementssuchas:“Imay
haveJewishancestors,butIcan’ttell.Mymother’snameisAcevedo:Acevedomaybea
nameforaPortugueseJew,butagain,itmaynot.”2Orthat“everyWesternpersonisGreek
andJewish,”3anideahereturnstotimeandagain.LisaBlockdeBeharstates:
Thereferencesmultipliedbyhispoems,stories,articles,lecturesand
interviewsaresofrequentthatthisprofusionissurprisinginawriterwho
[…]doesnotvindicatetheneedtobeJewishtoclaimit—andonecouldthink
thatthechoicesofthisaffectiveaffinity[indicate]adeparturefromgenetic
ordogmaticfatalitybypureattraction.4
1Ibid.,110.2Thisexchange,whichwemightlegalisticallyterm“leadingthewitness”,isquotedin:Christ,"JorgeLuisBorges,theArtofFictionNo.39."3AsBorgesexplainedtotheSociedadHebraicaArgentina,inaspeechattheir25thanniversarydinnerin1951:“Our[theWesterners,-YL]fusionwiththeHebrews[…]isirrefutableandfinal.”Quotedin:n/a,BoletinS.H.A.1951.4LisaBlockdeBehar,"AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesasReaderofMartinBuber,"inThinkingwithBorges,ed.WilliamEggintonandDavidE.Johnson(Aurora,CO:TheDaviesGroup,2009),185.
65
Thisgameofinheritance(toplaywiththeprehistoryofone’sblood)ispartofBorges’
skillfuldestabilizationofnotionsofOrigin.Andyetonecannotavoidbeginningfrom
somewhere—tobeHuman,Jewish,Argentine.Borgessawthisinheritanceaspartofa
literaryandculturalprogramwhoseprimaryfocusistoidentifyapointofdeparturefor
Argentineletters.Inordertomakesenseofsuchabeginning,wemustfirstaskwhat
exactlyistobethusinherited?Whatparticularelements(textual,intellectualorother)
constitutethis“Judaic”that,ontheonehand,everyWesternperson[simply]is,andthat,on
theother,isnever[simply]Western?OneofthemostcommonexplanationsforBorges’
ideaofinheriting“theJudaic”willbringusbacktotheadjective“cabbalistic,”andthe
methodologicallimitationsithasposedonreadingBorges.
WemustnoteattheoutsetthatBorges’familiaritywiththetextualandintellectual
traditionsofJudaismwas,asEdnaAizenbergremarks,secondary,translatedandre-
elaborated.5Thisindisputableobservationaccountsforaconsiderableamountof
confusioninthestudyofBorges’Jewishinheritance,sinceitthrowsintoquestionwhatis
meantexactlyby“Jewish”whenwespeakofBorges’inheritance.Thatis,itposesthe
question:towhatextentdidBorgesperceivecertaintextsorideasasparadigmatically
Jewishduetotheintellectual(nottosayideological)positionsoftheirmediatingagents?
Toaddressthis,weshouldfirstdelimitthequestion.Borgesdoesfinallyfocushisinterest
inthetextualandintellectualtraditionsofJudaismonScriptureandonCabbalaand
Hassidism.ThesearefieldsoftextandthoughtthatstandoutasparticularlyJewishin5EdnaAizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo(FrankfurtamMaim;Madrid:Vervuert;Iberoamericana,1997),25.
66
Borges’readingsandrenderingsoftheirthemes.Inwhatfollows,andinlinewiththe
concernsoutlinedintheintroductiontothissection,wewillfocusonthelattertwo.6
Withinthese,BorgesfocusesthereaderinterestedinhisJewishinheritanceontwomajor
figures,whohepresentsasmediatingforhimthetraditionsofCabbalaandHasidism:
GershomScholemandMartinBuber.
ThisisnottosaythatBorges’eruditioncanbenarrowedtothewritingsofScholemand
Buber.Whatitdoessuggest,however,isaqualificationtotheproblemofBorges’mediated
inheritance.Thatis,whileBorgeshadnodirectaccesstomuchoftheJewishtextand
thoughthediscussesinessaysandrendersinnarratives,thesewerenonethelessnot
passivelyreceived.Borgeswasnotunknowingly“fed”ideologicallyinflectedknowledgeof
Judaism.CertainlythisistrueofScholemandBuber,whowouldnotonlyagreethat
CabbalaandHasidismarenotthesame,butwhoserespectiveideasofeachdifferasmuch
asdothesetwoconceptsinJewishintellectualhistory.Ourpointofdeparturethenisthat
BorgeshimselfchosetorepresentScholemandBuberastheagentsofmediationthrough
6IwillleaveScripturetothesideforreasonsoutlinedherebriefly.OfalltheJewishtextsBorgesread,thiswastheleastmediated.Itwasavailabletohimintranslation—manytranslationsinfact,ashecollectedBiblesandparticularlyenjoyedthestudyofitsvarioustranslations.ThereisthuslessconfusionastowhatitwasthatmadeScripturesoJewishinBorges’eyes.TherewasalsoplentythatmadeitChristianinhiseyes,notleastthemanyChristiantranslationsheread,andthefactthat“TheBible”refers,forhim,toboththeHebrewBibleandtheNewTestament.ThisisalsoevidentinthechoiceofthemesBorgesrevisitsasBiblical—CainandAble,AdamandJesus,Job,Judas—whichexhibittheequallyChristianelementshetakesup.AsfarasBiblicalinterpretation,orthetraditionoftakingupBiblicalthemesinliterature,Borges’mainreferentswerewriterssuchasDanteandMilton,notRashiandAbarbanel.ThereaderinterestedintheinfluenceScripturehadonBorges’thoughtandwritingmayfurtherconsultAizenberg’swork:ibid.,aswellasSalvador’sdiscussionofbiblicalthemesinBorges’writing:GonzaloSalvador,BorgesYLaBiblia(Madrid;FrankfurtamMain:Iberoamericana;Vervuert,2011).ForadiscussionoftheroleofScripturein20thcenturyArgentineliteraturemorebroadly,see:LucasAdur,"BorgesYElCristianismo:Posiciones,DiálogosYPolémicas"(UBA,2013).
67
whichhewouldinheritJewishtradition.7
ScholemandBuberrepresentaselectionasfarasBorges’self-fashioningofprecursors.As
Aizenbergargues,“despitetherhymingof‘Scholem’and‘Golem,’andeventuallyreading
Scholem’slearnedtomes,Borgesdidnotderivemostofhisknowledgefromtherenowned
scholar.”8ScholemwasindeedalatebibliographicadditiontoBorges’knowledgeof
Cabbala.AizenberghasalreadynotedtheChristianCabbalistsmentionedinseveralof
Borges’storiesaspartofalargersetofsourcestobeconsidered.9However,therhymingof
“Scholem”and“Golem,”whichBorgeswasparticularlyproudof(hementionsitatevery
opportunitytodiscusshis“cabbalisticinfluences”),isgreatlyimportantinthatitrelatesto
alargereffortonBorges’parttorepresenthisinterestintheCabbalaaspartofhisinterest
inJudaism,andhisfamiliaritywithCabbalaasmediatedparticularlybyJewishsources.In
thatsense,whenAizenbergseesBorgesas“alatterdayincarnationofHebraists,”10we
shouldunderstandthisalsointhesensethat(likeearlymodernHebraists11)representing
theCabbalaashisprecursorispartofhisclaimtoanauthorityandauthenticityinhisown7CertainlyScholemandBuber,astwoofthemostprominentthinkersandresearchersinthesefields,arenotasurprisingchoice.Mypointisthat(atleasttotheextentthatScholemisnotacabbalistandBuberisnotaHasidicrabbi)theyarenonethelessachoice.Astotheir“interpretability”inlinewithBorges’ideaofJewishDiasporaandmarginality,(whichwewilltakeupinthenextsection,)thequestionofwhetherBorgesfocusesonCabbalaandHasidismbecauseoftheinterpretabilityofScholemandBuber,oronScholemandBuberbecauseoftheinterpretabilityofCabbalaandHasidism,isacircularlineofinquirywewillhereavoid.8EdnaAizenberg,"A21stCenturyNoteonBorges'sKabbalism,"VariacionesBorges39(2015):54.9SomeothersourcesofinfluencesonChristianCabbalists(otherthanJewishCabbala),itshouldbenoted,werealsointroducedtoBorgesthroughhisreadingsofScholem,suchastheearlyNeo-PlatonistJohannesScotusErigenawhoisdiscussedbyScholeminseveralbooks,mostimportantly:GershomGerhardScholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1961).10Aizenberg,"A21stCenturyNoteonBorges'sKabbalism,"53.11FormoreonChristianHebraistsbasingtheauthorityoftheircontemporarysocialandpoliticalclaimsontheauthenticityoftheHebrewsourcestheydrawupon,inthecontextoftheReformation,see:EricNelson,TheHebrewRepublic,JewishSourcesandtheTranformationofEuropeanPoliticalThought:OfEuropeanPoliticalThought(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2011).Forthesocio-culturalnegotiations,enabledbyclaimstotheauthenticityofHebrewtexts,inthecontextoftheCounter-Reformation,see:AmnonRaz-Krakotzkin,TheCensor,theEditor,andtheText:TheCatholicChurchandtheShapingoftheJewishCanonintheSixteenthCentury,JewishCultureandContexts(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2007).
68
present—apresentinwhich(aswewilldiscussshortly)theaccuracyofhisunderstanding
ofCabbalaisalwaysbracketed.
Anillustrationofthisclaimcanbemadebyexaminingoneoftheearliestbibliographic
referencesBorgesoffersforhisknowledgeofCabbala.Inhisearlyessay“AHistoryof
Angels”12(partofhis1926collectionofessays“ElTamañodemiEsperanza”13),Borges
alreadyliststwosources:
Dr.ErichBischoff,inhisGermanbookentitledTheElementsoftheKabbalah,
publishedinBerlinin1920,enumeratesthetensefiroth,oreternal
emanationsofdivinity[…]Stehelin,inhisRabbinicalLiterature,linksthefirst
tenlettersofthealeph-beth,oralphabetoftheHebrews,tothesetenlofty
worlds.14
Stehelin’sRabbinicalLiteratureisinfactatranslationofanearlierGermanbookbyJohann
AndreasEisenmenger,aknownGermanOrientalist.His1700bookEntdecktesJudentum15
(JudaismUncovered),translatedbyStehelin,wasamajorworkofChristianpolemicagainst
theJewsofhisday.ThisfactdidnotescapeStehelin,who,onthefirstpageoftheprefaceto
histranslation,notes:
TheoppositiontheJewsamongus,orsomeofthem,havemadetothe
Undertaking,mustneedsbeprettywellknowninTownsincetheypublished12Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,16-19.13ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza(BuenosAires:EditorialProa,1926).14SelectedNon-Fictions,17.Borgesisreferringto:Bischoff,DieElementeDerKabbalah.And:Stehelin,TheTraditionsoftheJews;withtheExpositionsandDoctrinesoftheRabbins,ContainedintheTalmudandOtherRabbinicalWritings.TranslatedfromtheHightDutch.15JohannAndreasEisenmenger,EndecktesJudenthum,Oder:GrundlicherUndWahrhaffterBericht[...],2vols.(FrankfurtamMain:J.P.Andreae,1700).
69
intheDailyCourant,alongandveryfreeLetteragainstit.16
ThepointIwouldliketointroduceatthebeginningofthischapteristhatBorgesislittle
concernedwithquestionsofauthorityinthepastwhenitcomestohis“cabbalistic”sources.
Infact,thepseudepigraphicnatureoftheZohariswhatearnsitaplacealongsidetheDon
QuixoteinBorges’libraryofprecursors.17Justas,inspiteofhisdifferenceswiththeJewish
communityofhistime,StehelinisasourceonCabbala,sotooarecontemporarywriters
whohavedeepdifferenceswithScholem.18Nonetheless,Borgescontinuouslyrepresents
ScholemashismajorsourceonCabbala,evenasheborrowsfromanarrayofwritingson
thetopic,preciselyinordertomakeaclaimaboutauthorityandauthorshipinthepresent.
Borges’effortistorepresent“theJudaic”asacentralinfluenceonhiswriting.TheCabbala
ispartofaconstellationofJewishsourcesthatBorgesalludestoaspartofthiseffort.What
ScholemoffershimisaconceptualizationoftheCabbalaasinherentlyexpressiveofthegap
betweentheCabbalists’narrativeofredemptionandthenarrativeoftheirsocialand
historicalexistence.Scholemcharacterizesthisgapintermsoftrendsofthought,andsees
itasdiscursive—thedialecticalovercomingofwhichisexpressedinJewishNationalism,
16Stehelin,TheTraditionsoftheJews;withtheExpositionsandDoctrinesoftheRabbins,ContainedintheTalmudandOtherRabbinicalWritings.TranslatedfromtheHightDutch.,a1-a2.17See:Aizenberg,"A21stCenturyNoteonBorges'sKabbalism,"55-56.whereshereferstoBorges’essay“PartialMagicintheQuixote,”see:Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,185-87.18ExamplesofthisarepreviousgenerationsofCabbalascholars,whomScholemclearlydesiredtobreakwith,suchasBischoff(mentionedabove),aswellascontemporaryscholarssuchasJoshuaTrachtenberg(whomBorgesalsomentions,in:Christ,"JorgeLuisBorges,theArtofFictionNo.39.").See:Trachtenberg,JewishMagicandSuperstition,aStudyinFolkReligion.ForasurveyofthesourcesBorgesmentions,see:Sosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo,13-15.FormoreonthedifferencesbetweenScholemandpreviousgenerationsofCabbalascholarsseeScholem’sown“ReflectionsontheScienceofJudaism”in:GershomScholem,"Mi-TokhHirhurimʻalḤokhmatYiśraʼel,"inDevarimBe-Go:PirkeMorashahU-Tehiyah(TelAviv:`Am`oved,1976).Andadiscussionofthisessayin:Biale,GershomScholem:KabbalahandCounter-History,Esp.Introduction.
70
whichmaintainsnosuchgapbetweenredemptionandhistory.InScholem’sunderstanding
oftheCabbalaBorgesrecognizesasetofmysticalliterarytropesthatpowerfullyrecall
questionsofagapbetweenwritingandtheworldinwhichittakesplace.
BuberseestheCabbalaasdesignatingasetoftextsthatdiscursivelyproduceagap
betweentheirownwritingandtheworldinwhichtheyarewritten.However,heidentifies
theovercomingofthisgapintheteachingsofHasidismingeneral,and(aswehaveseenin
theintroductiontothissection)inthetalesofRabbiNachmanofBraslavinparticular.19
TheKabbalah,thatuncannilypowerfulundertakingbytheJewtowrest
himselffreeoftheconcretenessofthedialogicalsituation.[The]overcoming
oftheKabbalahisthesignificantworkofHasidism.20
Thus,inBuber’swritingBorgesfindstheconceptualizationofagapbetweentraditionand
modernity,inwhichhiscontemporaryJewsfindthemselves,andamodelingofHasidismas
awayofovercomingtherupturewithtradition.Thequestionoftraditionandthe
characteristicsofabreakfromitarecentralquestionsforBorgesandwillconcernusthein
nextsection.InthepresentchapterIwillfollowthethemeofwritingandauthorship.
Borges,likeR.Nachman,isnotseekingtoovercomeorsublimatethisgapbuttorepresent
thisgapasaproblemofwriting,fromwhichwritingmaybegin,fromwhichtheauthor
mustattemptadeparture.
19ScholemtooseestheHasidicmovementaspostdatingthediscursiveseparationofredemptionandhistory.However,forScholemHasidismaccomplishesthisbyapsychologisticinternalizationofMessianism.WhereasJewishNationalismdoestheveryopposite:itmakesredemptionacollective-historicalaffair.See:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,NinthLecture.20MartinBuber,TheWritingsofMartinBuber(NewYork:MeridianBooks,1956),262.
71
BeforewereadthisinBorges’texts,however,afinalnote.Aswehavealreadyindicated,
anytendencytoconflateCabbalaandHasidism(aswellasScholemandBuber)underthe
topicofBorges’Jewishinfluences(atendencythatexistsinnearlyallresearchonthetopic)
mustbedeliberatelyandcautiouslyavoided.21Borgestakesupeachofthesefields
differently,andhereadseachofthesethinkers,whobelongtotwoquitedistinct
intellectualprojects,inadifferentmanner.Ourreadingtoomustparsethem,bothfortheir
interpretabilityinlinewithBorges’notionof“theJudaic,”andforthevarietyof
narratologicalelementshefindsinthem.WhatIwillargueisthatinthesetwosourceson
JewishtraditionBorgesdiscoversfarmorethanwhatCabbalaorHasidismwereabout.In
BuberandScholem—whichheandsubsequentresearcherswillcall“Hasidismand
Cabbala”—Borgesfindsaconceptualizationoftraditionandasetoftropesthatare
fundamentaltohisowntextualrenderingofArgentineidentity.BorgespresentsBuberand
Scholem,then,ascentralbuildingblocksforthenarrationofhisown“poeticsof
intransitivity.”
21ThisistruefromtheveryearliestresearchonBorgesandJewishtexts,byJaimeAlazrakiandSaulSosnowski.TheworkofLisaBlockdeBeharonBorgesandBuberstandsoutastheonlyworkexplicitlydevotedtoBorges’relationtoonlyoneofthesetwo.TomyknowledgethereisnoworkdevotedexclusivelytoBorgesandScholem,thoughRabí’sarticle(thefirstonthetheme)dealsonlywithScholem,withoutexplicitlynotingthischoice.Seeforinstance:Alazraki,"BorgesandtheKabbalah."And:Sosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo.Aswellas:BlockdeBehar,"AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesasReaderofMartinBuber."And:Rabi,"FascinationDeLaKabbale,"L'Herne(1964).
72
MetaphysicalTropes
Interviewer:HaveyoutriedtomakeyourownstoriesCabbalistic?
Borges:Yes,sometimesIhave.
Interviewer:UsingtraditionalCabbalisticinterpretations?
Borges:No.IreadabookcalledMajorTrendsinJewishMysticism.22
IndiscussingthethemeofBorgesandCabbala-as-mediated-by-Scholemwewoulddowell
tofirstnotetheextenttowhichScholemconditionedBorges’possibilitiesofalludingto
Cabbala.Borgesdidnotknowanycabbalists,andhisprimarysourceofcabbalistictexts
wasthecitationsheencounteredinScholem’sbooks.Borges’arrayofcabbalistic
charactersandconceptsreadslikeatableofcontentsforsomeimaginaryvolumeon
“MajorTrendsinScholem’sWritingsonMysticism.”Infact,thefewtimesBorgescites
originalsourcesinconnectionwithcabbalistictopics,thequotesaretakenfromquotes
Scholemoffersofthesesources.23“Selectionandabbreviationthemselvesconstituteakind
ofcommentary,”24Scholemstatesinthefirstpagesofhislectures.Andindeed,from
citationsofSeferYetsira,totheTalmud,tothedoctrineoftheSefirotandtheZohar,the
influenceofScholem’scommentary—bibliographicandconceptual—onBorges’references22Thisexchange,whichwemightlegalisticallyterm“leadingthewitness”,isquotedin:Christ,"JorgeLuisBorges,theArtofFictionNo.39."23E.g.theentry“UnGolem”in:JorgeLuisBorgesandAdolfoBioyCasares,CuentosBrevesYExtraordinarios(Antologia)(BuenosAires:EditorialRaigal,1955).isadirect(translated)quotefromSanhedrin65b.Thesameistrueoftheentry“theGolem”in:JorgeLuisBorgesandMargaritaGuerrero,ManualDeZoologíaFantástica(Mexico:FondodeCulturaEconómica,1957).,whichcontainsanextensivequoteofthementionofaGoleminSanhedrin65b.ThereisnomentionofScholemineither,butthissourceisrepeatedlyquotedthroughoutthe5thchapterof:GershomScholem,OntheKabbalahandItsSymbolism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1965).,titled“TheIdeaoftheGolem”.[IhaveconsultedBorges’copyofthisbook,withhisannotationsinthebackpages,inhispersonallibraryattheFundaciónInternacionalJorgeLuisBorgesinBuenosAires.IfoundChapter5tobe(theonlyone)thoroughlyannotated.–YL]24Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,3.
73
toCabbalaismarked.
Whatmightappeartobebibliographicincidentalsbecomeinterpretiveconsiderations
whenweobservethatscholarswhohavewrittenonBorgesandCabbalahavereliedon
Scholem(atleast)asmuchasBorgesdidtoauthorizetheirdefinitionanddelimitationof
whattheyrefertoas“TheCabbala.”Iffact,itishardtofindasinglecitationofacabbalistic
textinanyoftheexistingworkonBorgesandCabbalathatisnotcitedas:“Quotedby
Scholemin…”25Whatisthuspresentedasaclearindicationofcabbalisticinfluenceson
Borges—”Borgesutilizescabbalisticnotions,employsexegeticalelements,andcitesnames
andtextsthatdirectlyrefertothistheme”26—isinfactonlythedemonstrationofa
correlation(bibliographicandtropological)between,ontheonehand,whatBorgesread
andwhatScholemwrote—acorrelationthat,onesuspects,isalwayspartiallyimpliedin
theactofcitation—andontheotherhand,betweenBorges’sourceofauthorityonthe
Cabbalaandhiscommentators’sourceofauthorityonthetopic.27
WhenresearchonBorgesandCabbalahitsuponthiscorrelation,then,itonlyservesto
perpetuatethedeferralofthequestionofBorges’Jewishinheritance.Inanillustrative
articleonthetopic,inwhichBorgesispresentedasgreatly“indebtedtoKabbalistic25Consider,forinstance,thatreferencestoScholemtakeup29outof65footnotesin:Alazraki,"BorgesandtheKabbalah.",orthatthetwowritersmostwidelyreferredtobySosnowskiareBorgesandScholem,eachreceivinganequalnumberof11bibliographicentriesin:Sosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo.Thoughtheycertainlydonotattesttothenatureoftheanalysis,nortoitsexceptionalquality(theseare,afterall,thetwomostprominentresearchersinthefieldofBorgesandCabbala),thesenumbersindicatethesubstitutionof“Kabbalah”(or“Cábala”)forwhatmightmoreaccuratelybenamed“Scholem.”26BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo,13.Mytranslation–YL27ThecentralworksonBorgesandtheCabbala,whichIrefertothroughoutthischapter,werewrittenbyscholarswithknowledgeofCabbalathatgoeswellbeyondthecoupleofScholembooksthatBorgesread.ButtherelianceonScholemthatthesesamescholarsexhibit,inbibliographiccitationandintheidentificationoftropes,suggeststhatforthemasforBorgesScholemservestoauthorizetheirknowledgeoftheCabbala.ThismirroringofScholem’sfunctionasarhetoricalinvocationofauthorityisthemethodologicalproblemathand.
74
conceptions,”28thisdebtsoonturnsouttobe“regardlessoftheaccuracyofhis
understandingofitsdoctrine.”29Andyet,regardless,itisadebtthatisalwaysqualifiedby
thephrase“asunderstoodbyBorges.”30Quiteanoddstructureofdebtor,atanyrate,of
recognizinganinheritance.Howarewetounderstandthisdebttoconceptions,regardless
ofanyaccuracyinunderstandingthem,andthatmightonlyexistinasfarasitwas
understoodbyBorgestoexist?Onesuggestionhasbeenthat“[Borges’]artisKabbalisticin
asensedefinedbyBorgeshimselfinhisessay‘AVindicationoftheKabbalah.’”31Iwould
liketoofferalesstautological(lessthan:weconsiderBorges’writingtobecabbalistic,
becauseitiscabbalisticinthesenseBorgeshimselfmeanswhenhesayshiswritingis
cabbalistic)accountofwhattheconcernwith“cabbalistic”meansinthecontextofBorges’
writing.
Afirstobservationtowardsengagingthisquestionistonotethat,forBorgesasforthe
academicstudyofCabbala,mysticismanditsphenomenaaretropes.InrelyingonScholem
forhisknowledge,CabbalaismediatedforBorgesinimportantwaysbytheacademic
intellectual-historicallens.Thiscertainlypredeterminestheconditions,underwhich
Borgesacquireshisknowledge.Mediatedbyacademicstudy,keyelementsofCabbalasuch
asecstaticexperiencesandafunctional(ifnotmetaphysical)distinctionbetweenexoteric
andesotericknowledge—twoexamplesthatfeatureextensivelyinBorges’handlingof
28VirginiaGutierrezBerner,"MysticalLaws;BorgesandKabbalah,"CR:TheNewCentennialReview9,no.3(2010):137.29Ibid.,138.30Ibid.,139.31Alazraki,"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative,"78.
75
Cabbalisticthemes32—areentirelyabsentfromBorges’encounterwith(Scholem’sstudy
of)Cabbala.Afterall,Scholemisnothimselfacabbalist.Hedoesnotinstructhisreaderin
theattainmentofecstaticexperiences,nordoeshemaintainafunctionaldistinction
betweenexotericandesotericknowledge.Hecertainlyreportsthesetobekeyelementsof
Cabbala,buttheacademiclensblursthepossibilityofclearlydistinguishingbetweenthe
keyelementsofCabbalaandthekeytermsintheinvestigationofCabbala.Thatis,thelived
experiencesandconcernsofcabbalistsbecometropesinthewritingofcabbalisticstudies.
AsecondobservationisthatinalloftheresearchonBorgesandCabbalathestandardof
proofthatistheindicationofinfluence—whatIhaveproposedtocall“correlation”—
involvesacomparisonbetweenastorybyBorgesandadoctrinaltextofCabbala(whichis
alwaysavailabletotheresearcherinfragments,predeterminedbyScholem’schoiceof
citations).33Thedemonstrationthatinstoriessuchas“TheGodScript”or“TheAleph”
BorgesspeaksofecstaticrevelationthesamewayMosesCordoveroorAbrahamAbulafya
do,substitutesforBorges’persistentreferencetoScholemasasourceofauthorityforhis
ownwritingsaclaimtosome“cabbalisticinfluence,”thenatureofwhichremains
unarticulatednotforesotericreasons,butpreciselybecauseitistakentoexist“regardless
oftheaccuracyof[Borges’]understandingofitsdoctrine.”34
32SeeforexampleSosnowski’sdetailedanalysisofBorges’story“TheGodScript”in:Sosnowski,BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo,62-72.33Thereadertowhomthismayseemanover-generalizingstatementisinvitedtosearchanyofthebibliographicreferencescitedhereforanexampletothecontrary.Thoughcitationsincludenumerousreferencestotheworksofmajorresearchersinthefield,aswellastoseveralyoungerscholars,thereaderwillfindthisgeneralizationisrathersomethingofan“industrystandard.”SosnowskiisuniqueinquotingmoreextensivelyfromtraditionalJewishtexts(especiallytheTalmud),butthestructureofpresentingstoriesbyBorgesalongsidedoctrinaltextsofCabbala,presentedthroughScholem’sunderstanding,stillholds.34GutierrezBerner,"MysticalLaws;BorgesandKabbalah,"138.BorgesencounteredthefiguresofAbulafiaandCordoverointhe4thchapterand5thand6thchapters,respectively,of:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewish
76
“Itisimportanttooutlinefields:Borgesisnotaphilosopher,noratheologian,nora
cabalist,noranhistorian:Heisamakeroffictions,”35statesSosnowskiquitedecidedly.As
wewillseepresently,turningtoBorges’ownwritingsonCabbala,Borgesunderstands
speculativemetaphysicstobeafictionalendeavoraswell.Mustonechoose,then,between
beingacabbalistandamakeroffictions?“Kabbalisticspeculation[…]areinthelastresort
waysofescapingfromhistoryratherthaninstrumentsofhistoricalunderstanding,”36says
Scholem.Thoughperhapssuchdemarcationistoodecidedforthecontinualblurringof
fieldsandgenresthatBorgesoffers,whatthisimportantoutlineshouldsuggestisthat,in
ourattempttooffertheproperregardtoBorges’understanding,wewoulddowelltoshift
ourfocusfrom“TheCabbala”and“thecabbalists”—asobjectsthatcanbeaccurately(or
inaccurately)understood—totheadjective“cabbalistic”—amodificationandauthorization,
thenatureofwhichwearehereexploring,andthatcanbeattributedtootherobjects,such
asBorges’writing.
DiscussingtheJewishimaginariesinBorges’fiction,EvelynFishburngoesasfarastostate
that“eachof[Borges’storieswithaJewishconnection]isconnectedwithoneorother
aspectofCabbala.”37Togobeyondbibliographicandtropologicalcorrelationsthen,we
shouldexploretheroleofthese“cabbalistic”tropesinBorges’writingasanarratological
element.OnewaytodosowouldbetoreadBorges’storiesalongsideother“cabbalistic
Mysticism.ScholemseemstobethefirstbookBorgesmentionsreadingontheCabbalathatmentionsthesefiguresinanydetail.35Sosnowski,"ElVerboCabalísticoEnLaObraDeBorges,"36.Mytranslation–YL36Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,20.37EvelynFishburn,"Borges,Cabbalaand"CreativeMisreading","Ibero-AmerikanischesArchiv14,no.4(1988):407.
77
stories”(suchasR.Nachman’stales).ThisIintendtotakeupinfullinthefinalchapterof
thepresentstudy.Forthemomentwewillfollowourcurrentlineofquestioningfurther
andask:ifBorgeswasnothimselfamystic;iftherelationbetweenthecabbalistictropesin
Borges’storiesandthesesametropesinthecabbalistictextsquotedbyScholemisalways
predeterminedtobereducedto“correlation”byrecognizingthemascitations;if
definitionsofR.Nachman’stalesas“cabbalistic”relyonassumptionsthat(thoughwehave
disputedsomeoftheminthepreviouschapter,nonetheless)couldneverbeappliedto
Borges;how,then,doweaccountforthepersistenceofcabbalistictropesinhiswriting,
andwhat,then,makeshisstories“cabbalistic”?
KeepinginmindthatforBorges,referencingScholemisawaytoauthorizehisJudaic
inheritance,andthat“cabbalistic”isthenarratologicalattributeofasetoftropesheis
(representinghimselfas)thusinheriting,wemightbegintoanswerthesequestionsby
asking,howdoesScholemrepresent“cabbalisticexpression,”anditsrelationtonarrative?
OneaspectofScholem’sprojectinMajorTrendsinJewishMysticism38ispreciselyto
consolidateanoverarchingmythicaluniverse,withinwhichmysticalandnarrative
speculationsuponredemptionhavetakenplace.“ThewholeofAggadahcaninawaybe
regardedasapopularmythologyoftheJewishuniverse,”39heexplains.Andforthe
Cabbalists,“Aggadahisnotjustadeadletter.Theyliveinaworldhistoricallycontinuous
withit.”40Thiscontinuitybetweenmythandhistoryproducesaninescapabletension
betweentheinternalexperienceofaredemptionnarrativeandtheexternalpolitical-
38Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism.Andseealso:"RememptionthroughSin,"(1937).39MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,31.40Ibid.
78
historicalconditions.ForScholem,thistensionisafocalpointfortheintellectualhistoryof
Jewishmysticism’smajortrends.“TheJewishmysticlivesandactsinperpetualrebellion
againstaworldwithwhichhestriveswithallhiszealtobeatpeace.”41Foralltheirvariety
ofreligiousexperience,Jewishmysticscannotavoidthisparadoxicalexistence,Scholem
observes.
Thistension,continuesScholem,“isresponsiblefortheprofoundambiguityof[the
mystic’s]outlook,anditalsoexplainstheapparentself-contradictioninherentinagreat
manyKabbalisticsymbolsandimages.”42Thatis,theinherentappearanceofself-
contradictionistheproducttheconventionalconflationofaredemptionnarrativewithan
historicalnarrative—aconventionthatis,forScholem,thehallmarkof“cabbalisticwriting.”
OneofthemajortrendsScholem’sstudyidentifiesistheintenseexpressionofthis
contradictionasagap.WhenBorgessayshetriestowrite“cabbalisticstories”weshould
understandthatheattemptstowritestoriesthatappropriatethetropesidentifiedby
Scholemascabbalistic,forthepurposesoffacilitatingtheexpression—inastoryofhis
own—oftheinherenttensionofhisownexistence(anditsnarrativesublimationasagap)
betweenArgentinaandEurope.
WhatBorgesfindsinScholem,then,isdouble.FirstistheabilitytohandletheCabbalaina
non-devotional,academicmanner.Thatis,toexploretherichworldsofthecabbalistsas
tropes.Second,andinsodoing,heidentifiestheconditionsofauthorshipthatwouldallow
one(theintellectual)toapproximatethismetaphysicalrealmwithoutenteringinto41Ibid.,34.42Ibid.
79
theologicalspeculations.Thatis,toenterthenarrativerealmofaGodlessmetaphysics.43But
whileScholemseessuchspeculationsasanescapefromhistory—”Kabbalisticspeculation
[…]areinthelastresortwaysofescapingfromhistoryratherthaninstrumentsof
historicalunderstanding,”44—whichproducesthetensioninherenttothecabbalist’ssocial
existence,Borgesinterpretsthistensionasparticularlyexpressiveofhissocialhistorical
moment.
Interestingly,someonewhoratherinsightfullyperceivedthisrelationBorgesdevelopsto
CabbalawasScholemhimself.AizenbergwroteScholemdirectlytoaskwhathethoughtof
thetheme“BorgesandtheCabbala.”ShequotespartofScholem’sreply:“Borgesisawriter
ofconsiderablepowerofimagination[who]doesnotclaimtorepresentahistoricalreality,
butratheraninsightintowhattheCabbalistswouldhavestoodforinhisown
imagination.”45Animaginativerepresentationofanimaginativerepresentation,then,isthe
properrelationScholemidentifiesbetweenBorgesandtheCabbala.Heseemstohave
incisivelycapturedboththegreataffinityBorgesmaintainstothe“cabbalistic”andhis
abysmaldifferencefrom“TheCabbala.”
43EricJacobson’sdefinitionof“Metaphysics”inScholem’swritingmightbeinstructivehere:“Ihavetakentothetermmetaphysicstohighlightthebasicnatureofthethinkingaddressedinthisstudy:itisahighlyspeculativephilosophyoffundamentalquestionsregardingpoliticsandtheology,drawingonanearscholasticaptitudeforcategoricalanalysisandTalmudicrigor[…]Inthiswayitisinfactaphilosophyofdivineaswellasprofanequestions.”Whilethishasmoretodowithreadershipthanauthorship,wemightsayBorgesseesthesamepotentialforexpressingsuchconcernsinnarrativeform.See:EricJacobson,MetaphysicsoftheProfane:ThePoliticalTheologyofWalterBenjaminandGershomScholem(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003),5.44Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,20.45TheAizenberg–ScholemcorrespondenceiscitedinpartbyAizenberg,andavailableinfullattheGershomGerhardScholemArchiveintheNationalLibraryofIsrael.See:Aizenberg,TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges,86ff.2.Inthesameletter,Scholemoffersanexampleofhisownoversteppingofhistoriographyintotherealmofimaginationandinterpretation,referringtohis“TenUnhistoricalAphorismsonKabbalah.”Thesehavebeennotedintheintroductiontothesection.See:Scholem,ZehnUnhistorischeSätzeÜberKabbala.ForadiscussionofthistextinEnglish,see:Biale,"GershomScholem'sTenUnhistoricalAphorismsonKabbalah:TextandCommentary."
80
Aswehaveseenintheintroductiontothissection,forbothScholemandBuber“cabbalistic”
raisesthequestionofruptureandcontinuity,withregardstohistoryandtradition
(respectively).ThesequestionsarecertainlypartofBorges’broaderconcernswith
Argentinetraditionandliterature.However,theauthorityofapasthistoryortraditionisof
farlessconcerntoBorgesthanishisefforttoauthorizehimself,inthepresent.ForBorges,
“theJudaic”isapointofdepartureforArgentineliterature.Whatsuchdeparturemeans,
andhowitappears,willbethetopicofthenextsection.Fortheremainderofthepresent
chapter,thequestionwillbereadingthenatureofthis“cabbalistic”gapasapointof
departure,fromwhichoneisauthorizedtodepartasanauthor.
AVindicationoftheAuthor
Borges’twocollectionsFicciones(1944)andElAleph(1949)markthestabilization,ifnot
canonization,ofhisnarrativevoice.TheseincludemanystorieswithHasidicand
cabbalistictropes.Somearemoreobvious,likethevisionsoftheeinsofin“TheAleph”and
“TheGodScript,”orthementionofbookssuchasSeferYezirah,BiographyoftheBaalShem,
HistoryoftheHasidicSectin“DeathandtheCompass”and“TheSecretMiracle.”Somehave
requiredmoreinterpretiveworktoappreciate,suchasthepersonbehindtheveilin“The
ApproachtoalMu’tasim,”ortheGolem-likecreationin“TheCircularRuins.”Muchhas
beenwrittenaboutthese“cabbalisticstories”inBorges’writingandthebibliographyofthe
presentchapterreferstomanyofthosefinestudies.
81
However,whatinterestsmehereisnotsomuchtheidentificationofthesetropes.Iwould
likerathertoaskaboutBorges’reflectionsontheuseofthesetropesastropes.Itis
doubtfulthementionsofavisionoftheeinsof,orthecreationofaGolem,areconnectedto
anymysticalpracticesBorgesmighthavetakenupasaresultofreadingBuberorScholem.
And(althoughsomesuggestotherwise46)itisequallyunlikelythatBorges(in-spiteofhis
appearanceasanArgentineintellectual)wasinfactaHasidicrabbi.Itisclearthathetakes
upthesetropes,whichheencountersinBuberandScholem’swriting,andmakesuseof
themtoweavethefictionsheisrenownedfor.Intherestofthepresentchapter,Iwould
liketodemonstratetheroleofCabbalaandHasidisminarticulatingBorges’notionof
authorship.
SuchreflectionswerenotabsentfromBorges’writingduringthosesameyears,inwhichhe
composedhisfictions.WhiletheuseofHasidicandcabbalistictropesasnarrativeelements
isevidentinFiccionesandElAleph,hisessaysonliterature—oneofhismostpersistent
preoccupationsiswiththeroleandactivityoftheauthor—alsomakereferencetohis
readingsofBuberandScholemandtheideasexpressed(tohimthroughthem)inHasidism
andCabbala.WhatIwouldliketohighlighthereisthatBorgesmakesreferencetotheir
writingsbothtropologically,thatis,inthenarrativeexpressionsofhissocialhistorical
position,andintellectuallyinhisessaysreflectinguponthispositionanditsliterary
possibilities.Thisutilityof“theJudaic”informulatingthoughtsonintellectualquestionsof
writingandauthorshipisevidentinhisdiscussionsoftheCabbalaasearlyashis1932
46BlockdeBeharreferencesrecollectionsofBorges’lectures,where“peopledidnotgotoalecture:theywenttomass.”See:BlockdeBehar,"AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesasReaderofMartinBuber,"192.
82
essay“UnaVindicacióndelaCábala.”47
ThiswasthefirstoftwoessaysBorgespublishedthatdevotethemselvesto“TheCabbala.”
Theywerepublishednearlyfivedecadesapart;“UnaVindicacióndelaCábala”in1932and
“LaCábala”in1977.48In1932,wellbeforeScholem’smajorworkshadbeenpublished,
whatispertinenttoourargumentistherelevanceBorgesalreadyidentifiedintheCabbala
forexplaininghisownactivitiesasanauthor.Scholem’sworkswouldcomeadecadeor
twolatertoexpandandreinforcethisrelevance.
ItiscertainlytruethatBorgesidentifiesincabbalisticinterpretivepracticeswhatAlazraki
calls“possiblealternativestothereadingofatext.”49Butthesealternativesareonlythe
“technicalsideofKabbalism.”50Theyareoperationslimitedtotheextraction—through
endlessinterpretation—ofapluralityofmeaningsfromtheperfecttextthatistheBible.
Ingeniousastheymayhavebeen,Borgesisnotasconcernedwiththecabbalistsandtheir
operationsasmightfirstappear.WhatinterestsBorgesiswhattheapplicabilityofsuch
technicaloperationsimpliesabouttheauthorshipofthetext.Healreadysignalsasmuchin
theopeninglinesofhis“VindicationoftheCabbala,”whereheintroduceshisinterestinthe
theme(asisoftenthecasewithBorges’essays)ratherdisingenuously.
Neitherthefirsttimeithasbeenattempted,northelasttimeitwillfail,this
47Originallypublishedin:JorgeLuisBorges,Discusión(BuenosAires:M.Gleizer,1932).See:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972(BuenosAires:Emecé,1976),209-12.Translatedas“ADefenseoftheKabbalah”in:SelectedNon-Fictions,83-86.48Originallypublishedas:"LaCábala,"LaOpinión1977.andcollectedin:SieteNoches(MexicoD.F.;BuenosAires:FondodeCulturaEconomica,1980).See:ObrasCompletas,1975-1985(BuenosAires:Emecé,1989),267-75.Translatedas“TheKabbalah”in:SevenNights,trans.EliotWeinberger(NewYork:NewDirectionsPub.Corp.,1984),76-84.49Alazraki,"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative,"78-79.50Ibid.,78.
83
defenseisdistinguishedbytwofacts.Oneismyalmostcompleteignorance
oftheHebrewlanguage;theother,mydesiretodefendnotthedoctrinebut
ratherthehermeneuticalorcryptographicproceduresthatleadtoit.51
AmongtheproceduresBorgesenumeratesthereare“themethodicalsubstitutionofcertain
lettersofthealphabetforothers,thesumofthenumericalvalueoftheletters,etc.”52Itis
clearwhy,tosomeresearchers,suchprocedureshaveimpliedaninterestin“alternatives
toreading.”However,thisopeningparagraphissomewhatmisleading.“Accordingto
GershomScholem,”explainsAlazraki,“‘noneofthesetechniquesofmysticalexegesiscan
becalledKabbalisticinthestrictsenseoftheword…’”53implyingthatBorges’“vindication”
mightnotactuallybeconcernedwiththeCabbala,butratherwithasetoftechnical
procedures.Borgesmightnothaveknownthisin1932,wellbeforehimselfreadingthese
linesinScholem.
However,whatIhavejustcitedaretheopeninglinesfromthesecond(1957)editionof
Discussion(thecollectionthatincludesthisessay),whichhassincethenbeentheversionto
appearinallreprintsandcollections,andwhichanyreaderlookingupthisessaywill
encounter.54Notingthattheopeningparagraphofthisessayinthefirst(1932)editionwas
slightly,butimportantly,differentthanwhatwasjustcited,onlyaddstothecuriousnature
ofBorges’openingstatement.HereishowBorgesexplainsthetwofactsthatdistinguish51Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,83.Myemphasis-YL52Ibid.53CitedinAlazraki,"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative,"78,ff.2.as:“GershomScholem,MajorTrends,loc.cit.”54ThiseditionisalsothefirstvolumeofBorgestoinclude“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”(thecentraltextwewilldiscussinchapter3).Thetextofthislecturehadappearedpreviouslyonlyin:Borges,"ElEscritorArgentinoYLaTradición."
84
hisvindicationfromotherfailedattemptsinthefirst(1932)versionofthisessay.
Oneismysplendidinnocenceofthesacredlanguage;anotheristhe
attenuatingcircumstancethatIdonotwanttovindicatethedoctrine,norits
mechanism,butratherthegeneralprincipletheypostulate.55
InthisfirstversionBorgesstateshedoesnotwanttovindicatethedoctrine,northe
mechanismoftheCabbala.Whatheproposesistounderstandthegeneralprinciple,the
postulateoftheCabbala.ItwouldseemthatafterreadingScholem,Borgeseditedthe
introductiontohisessaysothatitwouldstateaninterestinthetechniques(aboutwhich
AlazrakicitesScholemstatingthattheyarenotactually“Cabbalistic”)ratherthanthe
“generalprinciple”oftheCabbala.Thisisnotasurprisingrevision,whenwerealizethis
changeonlyenhancesthetwodeparturesthatfollowBorges’initialstatementofinterest
(inbotheditions),andwhichguidetheessaytowardsitsconcernwithconceptionsof
authorshipratherthanproceduresofreadership.
TheinfiniteinterpretabilityofScripture,whichwouldbethejustificationfordeveloping
suchcryptographicprocedures,isconcludedfromthedogmathatseesinScripture“an
absolutetext,wherethecollaborationofchanceiscalculatedatzero.”56Thatis,believing
theBibletobeperfectlyandabsolutelyinterpretablewouldleadtodevelopingthese
alternativetechniquesofreading.Borgesglossesoverwhatwillbeacentralpointofhis
essay—hisreversalofthislogic—rathercasually,statinghis“desiretodefendnotthe
55Discusión,71.Myemphasis-YL56SelectedNon-Fictions,86.
85
doctrinebutratherthehermeneuticalorcryptographicproceduresthatleadtoit.”57Thatis,
thefactthatinterpretingtheBiblethroughsuch“alternative”techniquesisabletoyield
meaning,leadstotheconclusionthatitisa“perfecttext.”Theseconddeparturefrom
Borges’statedintentioncomeswhen,inspiteofdeclaringhisinterestinmethodrather
thandoctrine,fortherestoftheessayheproceedstoconsideronlythedoctrineofa
perfectbookandneveragainmentionsanyinterpretivetechnique.“Thusonemayjustify
thedogma,”58heconcludesaftersomediscussion.
TomakesenseofthesereversalswemightnotethatthisearlyessayalreadymarksBorges’
consistentinterestinCabbalaasanarrator(ratherthananinterpreter),aswellasan
understandingofCabbalathatwillshapehisfuturereadingofScholem.Afterstatinghis
justificationofthedogmaofaperfectbook,hepassestodiscussitsexemplarynarrative,
“theonethatinterestsmenowisGenesis:thesubjectmatteroftheKabbalah.”59This
generalizationabouttheCabbala(theCabbaliststooktheentireBible,manytextsofthe
Talmudandevenothercabbalisticwritings,astheirsubjectmatter)shouldnotsurpriseus.
Afterall,BorgesisnotahistorianorresearcheroftheCabbala.Whathesignalshereishis
narratologicalpreoccupation,thatwhathehasinmindwhenhespeaksofthedogmaofa
“perfectbook”oran“absolutetext”isanarrative,astory.
“TheKabbalistsbelieved[…]inthedivinityofthatstory,initsdeliberatewritingbyan
57Ibid.,83.Myemphasis-YL58Ibid.,84.59Ibid.,85.
86
infiniteintelligence.Theconsequencesofsuchanassumptionaremany.”60Onesuch
consequence,wemightsuspect,isthedevelopmentofcryptographicprocedures.These,
however,areofnoconcerntoBorges,whowillinfact,inafinaldeparture,insistonthe
implicationsofhisoriginalstatement:proceduresleadtodogma.Thus,theconsequences
hespeaksofdonotrelatetothepracticeofreadingsomuchastheydotoanunderstanding
ofthevarious(human)practicesofnarrating.Itistheideaofaninfiniteintelligence
narratingastorythatappealstoBorges.
Borgesprovidesthreeexamplesofhumanwritinginordertoexplain(vindicate)whatheis
drawntointheCabbala.First,thejournalistictext,asanexampleofprosaicwriting,is
concernedverylittlewithform.Whatitseekstocommunicateisitscontent.Itsformis
thereforesubjecttoarbitraryresults.Inprosaictext,heexplains,“thelengthandsoundof
theparagraphsarenecessarilyaccidental.Thecontraryoccursinpoetry,whoseusuallaw
isthesubjectionofmeaningtoeuphonicneeds.”61Poetry,astheoppositeexample,is
primarilyconcernedwithform.Itscontentisthereforesubjecttoarbitraryresults.Neither
poetrynorprosedefinesthekindofauthorshipthatcabbalisticdoctrineidentifiesinthe
storiesofGenesis.Preciselybecausethecollaborationofchanceintheircompositionis
measurable,theydonotlendthemselvestothetechniquesofinfiniteinterpretation.The
applicabilityofthesetechniquesistheidentifyingmarkofthedoctrine’sveracity.This
doctrinehasdirectnarratologicalimplicationsforBorges,whocomesheretohismost
strikingsuggestionofthisessay:
Letusconsiderathirdwriter:theintellectual.Inhishandlingofprose[…]or60Ibid.Myemphasis-YL61Ibid.
87
ofverse,hehascertainlynoteliminatedchance,buthehasdenieditasmuch
aspossible,andrestricteditsincalculablecompliance.Heremotely
approximatestheLord,forWhomthevagueconceptofchanceholdsno
meaning.62
Borges’vindicationoftheCabbalaisthevindicationofadoctrine,throughwhichonecan
explaintheroleoftheintellectual-narratorasanapproximationofGod-as-storyteller.“Let
usimaginenowthisastralintelligence,dedicatedtomanifestingitself[…]inwritten
words,”63proposesBorges,ambiguouslyomittingthesubjectof“thisintelligence.”Inthis
analogyBorgesisnotthecabbalist,whomustdevelopalternativestoreadinginorderto
plumbthemeaningofaperfecttext.Heisitsauthor.
Alreadyinthisearlyessay,withitsearlyreferencestoCabbala,itistheroleofthe
intellectualthatBorgesisconcernedwith.Arolethat,throughthewritingofstories,
desirestoapproximate“theLord,theperfectedGodofthetheologians,Whoseesallatonce
[…]notonlyalltheeventsofthisrepleteworldbutalsothosethatwouldtakeplaceifeven
themostevanescent—orimpossible—ofthemshouldchange.”64Inhisdivine
approximation,theintellectual-narratorexploresalternativesto“thisworld,”throughthe
speculationupon,andnarrationof,itsevanescentorimpossiblevariations.The
intellectual-narrator“whoseesallatonce”isabletoresolvetheinherentappearanceof
self-contradiction,whichScholemhasidentifiedin“cabbalisticwriting,”bysublimatingit
62Ibid.63Ibid.64Ibid.
88
intoadoctrineofinfiniteinterpretability.
ForBorges“cabbalistic”thusbecomesthemodifierofbothanarrativeandanarratological
project;thatoftheastralintelligenceBorgeswishestoapproximateasnarrator,andthatof
identifyingthosetropesthatprovidefortheexpressionof“thisworld”socialconditionsby
storiesofan“astralintelligence.”Itmaybetrue,asAlazrakisuggests,that“Borges
challengesthereadertoactivateallhisresources,tobecomehimselfacabbalist,”65soto
speak.ButthisisonlyafurtherindicationofBorges’differencefromthecabbalists.For
Borges,theadjective“cabbalistic”isfarmoreimportantlyamodifieroftheauthorial
functionthanofanymechanismofanalysis.Inthisimportantsense(whichwehaveseen
ScholemhimselfrecognizeinBorgesafewpagesago)Borgesshouldbeunderstoodasa
“cabbalisticnarrator”ratherthanacabbalisticinterpreter.And“cabbalisticstories”should
beunderstoodhereasindicatingacertainsetoftropesatthedisposaloftheintellectual-
narrator.
Scholem’seffectonBorges’understandingofauthorshipismarkedaslateasthecollection
SieteNoches,whichpresentssevenlecturesBorgesgaveoverthesummerof1977.In
severaloftheseBorgesreturnstotheideaofScriptureasinfinitelyinterpretable,bothin
ordertodiscussitsimplicationsandtodistinguishitfromWesternconceptsof“classical
literature.”IntwolecturesthatmentionthisunderstandingofScripture,Borgesattributes
theevolutionoftheideatosourcesthatagainbetrayhisfamiliaritywithScholem’swork.
Thusinhislecture“TheDivineComedy”hestates:
65Alazraki,"KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative,"92.
89
WeshouldmentionhereScotusErigena,whosaidthatScriptureisatextthat
enclosesinfinitemeaningsandthatcanbecomparedwiththeiridescent
plumageofapeacock.TheHebrewCabbalistsmaintainedthatScripturehas
beenwrittenforeachoneofthefaithful.66
Andagaininhislecture“Poetry”:
TheIrishpantheistScotusErigenasaidthattheSacredScriptureenclosesan
infinitenumberofmeaningsandcompareditwiththeiridescentplumageof
apeacock.CenturieslateraSpanishcabbalistsaidthatGodmadethe
ScripturesforeachoneofthepeopleofIsraelandasaconsequencethereare
asmanyBiblesastherearereadersoftheBible.67
AndthisassociationwassuggestedbyScholem,forwhomtheprominentChristianNeo-
PlatonistScotusErigenaisanimportantsourcefortheOriginsoftheKabbalah.68
Borges’1977collectionalsoincludesthelecturetitled“LaCábala,”inwhichherevisitsthe
themeofhis1932essay.InthislectureBorgesisnolongerconcernedwiththemechanisms
andproceduresofcabbalisticinterpretation.“Cabbalistic”indicatesaquality,expressed
hereasadoctrine,whichis“alientotheWesternmind.”ThisishowBorgesintroduceshis
topic:“Thediverse,andoccasionallycontradictory,teachingsgroupedunderthenameof
theKabbalahderivefromaconceptalientotheWesternmind,thatofthesacredbook.We
haveananalogousconcepttheclassicbook.”69
66Borges,ObrasCompletas,1975-1985,208.67Ibid.,254.68GershomScholem,OriginsoftheKabbalah,trans.AllanArkush(Philadelphia;Princeton:JewishPublicationSociety;PrincetonUniversityPress,1987).69Borges,SevenNights,76.
90
ThedifferenceisimportantforBorges,whoseintellectual-narrator-approximating-God
shouldnotbeunderstoodasanauthorofsome“classical”literature.Such“classical”books
are“seenassomethingchangeable[…]studiedinhistoricalfashion[…]placedwithina
context.Theconceptofasacredbookissomethingentirelydifferent.”70Borgesiscircling
thepointthatthe“cabbalisticstory”heisaftermaintainsadistancefromhistory,from
socialcontext—notachronologicaldistancebutanaffectivedistance.“Iamnotdealing
withamuseumpiecefromthehistoryofphilosophy.Ibelievethesystemhasan
application:itcanserveasameansofthinking,oftryingtounderstandtheuniverse.”71
Thisunderstanding,forBorges,isfirstandforemostanunderstandingofwritingand
authorship.CabbalistsspeculateuponwhatBorgeswantstoapproximate,assomething
thatcanbeapproximated—”theauthor.”
BydeclaringthattheuniverseistheworkofadeficientDivinity,onewhose
fractionofDivinityapproacheszero,ofagodwhoisnottheGod.Ofagod
whoisadistantdescendantofGod.Idon’tknowifourmindscanfunction
withwordsasvastandasvagueasGodorDivinity[…]Butwecan
understandtheideaofadeficientDivinity,onewhomustmakethisworld
outofshoddymaterials.72
Thematerialsoftheworld,theCabbaliststeachus,arewords.Abeingwhosedivinityis
reducedtozero,creatingaworldofshoddymaterials,ofwords—whichare,mystically,
70Ibid.71Ibid.,80.72Ibid.,82.
91
infinitelyinterpretable.ThisisverymuchwhatBorgeswantstoapproximatewiththe
intellectual-narrator.Theintentionisthesame:tocreateanarrative,aworld,inwhichthe
fractionofdivinityisreducedtozero,butwhichisnonethelesspowerfullymetaphysical—a
Godlessmetaphysics.
PickinguponthesetropesauthorizesBorgestowritehisownArgentinepresent.However,
Scholem’sinterestliesultimatelyintheCabbalistsasreaders,notinthedivineenergies
Borgesseekstoapproximateasauthor.Whiletheacademicstudyof“cabbalisticwriting”
doessuggesttoBorgesthepossibilityofwritingakindofGodlessmetaphysics,ultimately,
removingGodfromthemetaphysicaldiscussionremovestheveryauthorityBorgesdesires.
ItisinBuberandhisaccountofHasidismthatBorgesencountersdiscussionsof
authorship—inthecontextofthebroaderquestionabouttraditionandits
discontinuities—throughwhichBorgeswillcharacterizethedesireddivineapproximation
inmoreparticularhumanterms.
WritingWithintheGap
Borges’1952collectionOtrasInquisicionescompilesoveradecadeofessayisticreflections
onliterature.Halfofthetextsincludedinthecollectionwerepublishedinthemajordaily
newspaperLaNaciónbetween1941and1952.Perhapsthemostfamousoftheseis“Kafka
andhisPrecursors.”73ThiscollectionmarkstheaccumulationofBorges’thoughton
literatureandwriting,andisinmanywaysthecontemporaneoustheoreticalcounterpart73Originally:"KafkaYSusPrecursores,"LaNacion,August19,1951.Reprintedin1952inOtrasInquisiciones.See:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,631-775.
92
tohistwomajorstorycollectionsofthesameperiodFiccionesandElAleph.Togetherwith
thepublicationofmanyofBorges’mostnotableessaysonliterature—”TheArgentine
WriterandTradition”isaprime,thoughbynomeansunique,example—thefirsthalf-
decadeofthe1950sisalsomarkedbytheappearanceofmultiplereferencestoBuber’s
writingsandthought.ThusBlockdeBeharstatesthat,“withoutleavingasideBorges’own
claims,itispossibletonoticestrongtracesofBuber’sthought,inseparablefroman
imaginationwhichbecametheBorgesianjurisdictionparexcellence,asortofliterary
extraterritorialitywhich,ifnothisdiscoveryorhisinvention,stillremainshisconquest.”74
BorgeswasacquaintedwithBuber’swritingduringhisteenageyearsinGeneva.75In1938
hedecriedtheideologicalrevisionofTheHistoryofGermanNationalLiteraturebyA.F.C.
VilmarundertheThirdReich,andparticularlytheexclusionofalonglistofprominent
writerssuchasHeine,Kafkaand,furtherdownthelist,MartinBuber.76“Thereisnotone
thatinallhonestyshouldbeexcludedfromahistoryofGermanliterature.The
(unreasonable)reasonsforthismanifoldsilenceareevident:mostofthoseeliminatedare
Jewish.”77InthedecadeafterWorldWarII,Borgesbegantoexpresshisappreciationofthe
multifacetedcontributionofBuber’sintellectualprojectstoanunderstandingofhisown
concernswithliteratureandwriting.Borges’late1940sandearly1950sreferencesto
BubercertainlycorrespondtothewaveofBuber’sownpost-warpublications,among
whicharesomeofthemostnotableofhisworks.
74BlockdeBehar,"AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesasReaderofMartinBuber,"184.75“In1916[…]inGenevaayoungBorges,seventeenyearsofage,translatedfromGermanintoSpanish,thestory“Jerusalem”whichBuberhadincludedinthebookDieLegendedesBaalschem.”See:ibid.,185.76Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,200.77Ibid.,201.
93
Buberintroducedhisreaderstothelegends,talesandstoriesofHasidisminmanyvolumes
datingbacktothebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,butheoffershismost
comprehensiveconceptualintroductiontothethemeinhis1948bookHasidism.Alreadyin
theveryfirstpagesofthisbook,Buberexplainsthat“legendisourmainsourcefor
understanding[Hasidism],anditstheoreticalliteraturecomesonlyafteritslegend.The
theoreticalliteratureisthegloss,thelegendisthetext.”78Thisprivilegingofnarrativeasa
sourceforunderstandingthemovementandexpressingthein-betweenexistenceBuber
ascribesit,isinstructiveforourunderstandingofwhatBorgestakesupinBuber’swritings,
and,insomecases,directlytranslatesforhisownreadership.
“In-between-ness”isacentralmotifinBuber’sdepictionofEuropeanJewsingeneraland
theHasidicmovementinparticular.InbetweenEastandWest,79inbetweentraditionand
modernity,inbetweenGodandtheworld,thesearethetensionsofJewishexistenceBuber
presentsinhisbook.Hasidism,heargues,attainsauniquesynthesisofthese.“The
separationof‘livinginGod’from‘livingintheworld’isovercomeinthehasidicmessage,
andatrue,concreteunitytakesitsplace.”80Thisunityisnotwithoutitsinternaltensions,
and—importantly,bothtoBuber’sprojectaswellastoBorges’intellectualnarrator—these
areexpressedinthelegendsandtalesoftheHasidim.
78Buber,Hasidism,3.79See:VomGeistDesJudentums(Leipzig:K.Wolff,1916).Especiallychapter1,“DasGeistdesOrientsunddasJudentum,”whereBuberidentifiestheJewsasMittlervolk,anin-betweenpeoplethatmediatebetweenOrientandOccident.80Hasidism,103.
94
Thusperceived,HasidismofferedBuberamodelforhisownculturalproject.“Hasidism
helpedBubertorealizetwoobjectives:tofosteramodelfortheneworratherrenewed
JewishconsciousnessenvisionedbyculturalZionism[…]and,concomitantly,[…]the
creationofadistinctiveJewishmodernism,”81explainsMartinaUrban,inhercontextual
analysisofBuber’swork.TherearetwosidessherecognizestoBuber’sproject.Ontheone
hand,fromtheverybeginning,Buber’spublicationsofHasidiclegendsandtales“were
consideredcontributionstotheselargereffortstoovercomeassimilationinfavorof
acculturation.”82Ontheotherhand,“Buberwaspartofalargereffortofrestructuring
JewishmemoryandreconstructingJewishidentitythroughthecreationofnewformsof
cultureintheDiaspora.”83Buberdesiredtopromoteacculturationwithoutassimilation,
whichwouldleadtoanon-political,non-isolationistformofcollectiveidentity.
ThusBubercanbeseentoofferBorgesaconceptualizationofthein-betweenspace,in
whichhiscontemporaryJewsareproductivelyyetimmovablylocated.Hedoessoby
suggestingthereisaculturetobedeveloped(orrenewed)thatexistsonlyinthespace
betweenundesiredassimilationandinaccessibletradition.Buber’saudience,statesUrban,
“nolongersharedthesameculturalandsymboliclandscapeinhabitedbytraditional
Judaism.”84Whileatthesametime,notarrivingataconclusionthatwouldinvolve
withdrawalfromthecultures,intowhichthesemodernJewshadbeenacculturated.This
dynamicclearlyechoesinBorges’concernswiththeculturalrelationbetweenArgentina
81MartinaUrban,AestheticsofRenewal:MartinBuber'sEarlyRepresentationofHasidismasKulturkritik(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008),4.82Ibid.,10.83Ibid.84Ibid.,9.
95
andEurope(whichwewilltakeupthenextchapter).Forthepresent,thepointto
emphasizeisthatBuberfillsthisin-betweenspacewiththerichculturaltraditionof
Hasidicnarrative.Infillingthisspace,Bubertoomusttacklethequestionsofauthorship
andtraditionthatBorgesismostconcernedwithinhisownreflectionsonliteratureatthe
time.
ThroughtheaestheticmodeofrepresentationBuberadopted,hesoughtto
addressthechallengefacedbysynchronictransmission.Hewellrealizedthat
the“chainoftradition”ordiachronictransmissionhadbeenbroken.The
modernacculturatedJewnolongersharedthesameculturalandsymbolic
landscapeinhabitedbytraditionalJudaism.Tofillthisvacuumandrecreatea
senseofJewishness,Bubersoughttoreestablishanewmodeof
transmission.85
Urban’sanalysishelpsusidentifythepointatwhichBorgestakesupBuber’sthoughtinhis
ownreflectionsuponwritingandtheArgentineintellectual.“Bymakingretellingandnot
literalorfaithfultranslationthemodeofrepresentation,Bubersanctionsmoderate
decontextualization[…]Hence,retellingisaformofsynchronictransmission.”86Thisisa
practiceBorgestoohadalreadytakenupinhiscollectionHistoriaUniversaldelaInfamia87
andinvariousstories,from“PierreMenard,AuthoroftheQuixote”to“TheGospel
AccordingtoMark.”ItisherethatwebegintoseeBuber’sinfluenceonBorgesas
intellectualnarrator.De-contextualizationasaformofappropriatingliterarytropes,and
85Ibid.86Ibid.,22.87JorgeLuisBorges,HistoriaUniversalDeLaInfamia,ColecciónMegáfono(BuenosAires:EditorialTor,1935).
96
re-contextualizationastheinscriptionoftraditionintothequestionofArgentineletters,
arethepointsatwhichthespaceofsocialexistenceismirroredbyaquestionofliterary
tradition.InaseriesoftextsfromthisperiodofBuber’sinfluence,Borgesconceptualizes
thismirroring.
Borges’concernwiththeactivitiesoftheintellectualnarratorleadhimtoaparticular
imageofthespacefromwithinwhichhemightoperate.Theimageappearsinseveralof
Borges’textsfromthepost-warperiodandistakenfromBetweenManandMan,88abook
Borgesreadandthoroughlyannotated.89OnepassageBorgesnotesreads:
Weenterastrangeroomofthespirit,butwefeelasifthegroundwetreadis
theboardonwhichagameisbeingplayedwhoseruleswelearnas
weadvance,deepruleswhichweponder,andmustponder,butwhicharose
andwhichpersistonlythroughadecisionhavingoncebeenreachedtoplay
thisintellectualgame,andtoplayitinthisveryway.Andatthesametime,it
istrue,wefeelthatthisgameisnotarbitrarilychosenbytheplayer,butheis
undernecessity,itishisfate.90
Theroomofthespiritisdetachedfromtheoutsideworld.Thisde-contextualizedspace
nonethelessmaintainsunimaginabletiestootherplayers.InBuber’sTalesoftheHasidim91
Borgesfindstalesthatrelatesuchde-contextualizedspaces,whoseconnectiontothe
88MartinBuber,BetweenManandMan,trans.RonaldGregor-Smith(London&NewYork:Routledge,2002).89See:LauraRosato,GermánÁlvarez,andNacionalBiblioteca,Borges,LibrosYLecturas:CatálogoDeLaColecciónJorgeLuisBorgesEnLaBibliotecaNacional(BuenosAires:EdicionesBibliotecaNacional,2010),70-72.ForfurtherdetailseeAppendixItothechapter.90Buber,BetweenManandMan,195-96.91TalesoftheHasidim:TheEarlyMasters.
97
broadercontextturnsouttohavebeenpowerfullyunderstated.Borgestranslatedtwosuch
talesforhis1955collectionCuentosBrevesyExtraordinarios.92Thetalesare“ATransaction”
and“UpsettingtheBowl.”93Inbothtales,anactionbyHasidicrabbisthatseemsatfirst
disconnectedfromtheirsocial-politicalcontextturnsouttohavebeenaffectingthevery
heartofdecision-makingintheemperor’scourt.WhereastheEnglishtitlesfocusonthe
occurrencewithintheHasidiccourt,Borges’translationofthetitles(theonlyplacehe
takescreativelibertiesinthetranslationofthesetales)refocusesthemonwhatBorgesis
interestedin,themannerinwhichthesesupposedlycontext-lesseventsextendfrom
arbitrarinesstofate.Thefirstisthustitled“TheAccused,”fortheaccusationagainstGod
heardbythetribunalofHasidicrabbis,andthesecond“TheDistraction”or“Theneglect,”
fortheconsequencetheRabbi’sactionshaveintheemperor’scourt,causingadistraction
thatultimatelyleadshimtoneglecthisedictagainsttheJews.
This“strangeroom[in]whichagameisbeingplayedwhoseruleswelearnasweadvance”
appearsmoreexplicitlyintwootheressaysoftheperiod;“KafkaandHisPrecursors”and
“HistoryoftheEchoesofaName,”94bothofwhichwereincludedinOtrasInquisiciones.In
“KafkaandHisPrecursors,”BorgesrevisitsT.S.Eliot’s“TraditionandtheIndividualTalent,”
andtheideathatthepresentmodifiesthepast.Hestatesasmuchinafootnoteappended
totheclosinglinesoftheessay.“Thefactisthateachwritercreateshisprecursors.His
workmodifiesourconceptionofthepast,asitwillmodifythefuture.”95WhatBorgesadds
92BorgesandBioyCasares,CuentosBrevesYExtraordinarios(Antologia).93Buber,TalesoftheHasidim:TheEarlyMasters,258-59.94Originally:JorgeLuisBorges,"HistoriaDeLosEcosDeUnNombre,"CuadernosdelCongresoporlalibertaddelacultura15(1955).Itwasaddedtothe1960editionofOtrosInquisiciones,see:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,631-775.95SelectedNon-Fictions,365.
98
toEliot’sideainthisessayisthatamodificationofthepastcanincludetheretroactive
creationofatraditioninwhichanauthoroperates.Andthistraditioncanbeas
idiosyncraticasthewriter’sindividualtalent.Thus,inBorges’account,Kafkahascreated
anunlikelyliterarytraditionofprecursorsspanningZenoandAristotle,HanYu(“aprose
writeroftheninthcentury,”96Borgestellsus),Kierkegaard,RobertBrowning,LeonBloy
andLordDunsany.Therandomnessoftheseprecursorsservesbothtocreateacomic
effecttoBorges’analysisofKafka,andtosuggestamuchmorefarreachingconclusion.
Thatis,bysimplywriting,awriterfromnoidentifiabletraditionconstantlycreatesthe
traditionwithinwhichheoperates,throughconstantandunknowablelinkshecreatesto
hisprecursors.
OnesuchprecursorBorgessuggestsforKafkaisRobertBrowning’spoem“Fearsand
Scruples.”97Thispoem,whichBorgesreturnstotwiceinthecourseofhisessay,isnotonly
itselfaprecursortoKafka,butitisalsoitselfadiscussionofwhatitmeanstocreateone’s
precursor.Borgessummarizesthepoemthus:
Amanhas,orthinkshehas,afamousfriend.Hehasneverseenthisfriend,
andthefactisthatthisfriendhasneverbeenabletohelphim,butheknows
thatthefriendhasverynoblequalities,andheshowsothersthelettershis
friendhaswritten.Somehavedoubtsabouthisnobility,andhandwriting
expertsdeclaretheletterstobefake.Inthelastline,themanasks:“Whatif
96Ibid.,363.97Publishedin:RobertBrowning,PacchiarottoandHowHeWorkedinDistemper:WithOtherPoems(London:Smith,Elder&Co.,1876).
99
thisfriendhappenedtobe–God?”98
Theepistolaryrelationshipbetweenthemanandhisfriendexists,soissuspected,entirely
withintheman’sownlibrary.Theonlycertaintyinthepoemisthatthemanwritesletters
tohisfriend.Eventhefriend’sreplies,somesuspect,maybefake.Inthefinalline,theman
wonderswhetherhiselusivefriendmightbeGod.InthiselusivenessBorgesidentifies
Browning’spoemasaprecursornotonlytoKafkabutalsotoanothertext,whichatfirst
glancemayseementirelyabsentfromthisessay.ThatisBuber’s“strangeroomofthe
spirit,”whichwehavealreadycitedfromBetweenManandMan.Inhisthorough
annotationstothislastvolume,Borgesindicateshisownchainofassociations,leading
fromBuber’stextbacktoBrowning’spoemandforwardagaintoKafka.Thelinkbecomes
clearerapageafterwhatwehavealreadycited,whenBuberwrites:
Lifeisnotlivedbymyplayingtheenigmaticgameonaboardbymyself,but
bymybeingplacedinthepresenceofabeingwithwhomIhaveagreedonno
rulesforthegameandwithwhomnorulescanbeagreedon.99
Buber’ssuggestionthattheotherplayer—whowenevermeetandwhoseexistencewe
onlycontrivefromthefactthatagameisinplay—isGod,leadsBorgestoBrowning’spoem,
inwhichthesameissuggestedbytheprotagonistafteralifetimeofcorrespondencewith
anabsentother.Thisroomofthespiritinwhichthegameisblindlyplayedisalso
reminiscentoftheroom,inwhichtheidiosyncraticactionsoftheHasidicmastersproved
partofanongoing“game”thatfinallyinfluencesGodtochangetheemperor’smindinthe98Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,364.99Buber,BetweenManandMan,197.
100
storyBorgestranslatesas“TheAccused.”Thisassociationiscertainlyduetothe
comprehensivemannerinwhichBuber’sprojectbuildsonHasidismasovercoming“the
separationof‘livinginGod’from‘livingintheworld.’”100Andyet,overcomingthis
separationdoesnotleadHasidism(asBuberseesit)torecognizeanoverlapofthesetwo
realms.Rather,itsublimatesthisgapintothespacefromwhichtheHasidicrabbioperates,
playsthe“enigmaticgame.”
WhatBrowningaddstothisisthesuggestionthatthe“moves”inthisgamearemadeby
writing.Thegamebetweenthemanandhiselusivefriendisagameofletters.Theelusive
friendthatmightbeGod,Godthatmightbeafriend,isonesideofadialogue.The
elusivenessofwhatisbeyondthespacewelivein,alongwiththeinevitabilityofour
contactwithit,theseareoftheessencetounderstandingthedialoguethatisJewish
tradition,Buberteaches.ThisongoingdialoguebeganbetweenGodandMosesinamoment
ofevasion,whichBorgestakesupin“HistoryoftheEchoesofaName.”
“Isolatedintimeandinspace,aGod,adreamandamanwhoismad,andwhodoesnot
ignoreit,repeatanobscuredeclaration;torelateandtoweighthesewords,andtheirtwo
echoes,istheaimofthispage.”101Borgesisreferringtotheepisodeinthethirdchapterof
Exoduswhere,asheconciselysummarizesit,“Moses,authorandprotagonistofthebook,
askedGodforHisname,andHetellshim:IAmthatIAm.”102Thisphrasehasmanyechoes
insubsequentgenerations,proposesBorges,butonlytwointerpretations.
100Hasidism,103.101Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,750.102Ibid.
101
ThefirstinterpretationunderstandsGod’sreply,“IAmthatIAm,”asan“ontological
affirmation,”Borgesexplains.Initstranslationas“IAmthatIAm,”itaffirmsGodasthe
essenceofexistence,theprimebeing.Thisistheinterpretationthatpersistsinthevarious
translationsithasreceived,“multipliedbyhumanlanguages—Ichbinderichbin,Egosum
quisum,IamthatIam.”103Itistrueofeverywherethisnameechoesinitsmultiple
translations.ThefirstsuchecoBorgesreferencesisalinefromShakespeare’sAll’sWellthat
EndsWell:“simplythethingIamshallmakemelive.”104Theseare“wordsthatreflect[…]
thoseothersthatthedivinitysaidonthemountain,”105Borgesconcludes,conflatingtwo
centralmomentsinBuber’sthought;God’snameattheburningbushandtheencounter
betweenMosesandGodonthemountain.
ThesecondinterpretationofthesewordsisBuber’s.ItseesGod’sresponseasanevasion.
Thisphraseisnotanameatall.ItisGod’sattempttoavoidthequestion.
Othershaveunderstoodthatthereplyeludesthequestion[…]MartinBuber
indicatesthatEhyehasherehyehcanalsobetranslatedasIAmwhatIwillbe
orasIshallbewhereIshallbe.Moses,followingtheEgyptianmagicians,
wouldhaveaskedGodforHisnameinordertohaveHiminhispower;God
wouldhaveanswered,infact:TodayIspeakwithyou,buttomorrowIcanre-
dressmyselfinanyform,eveninformsofoppression,ofinjusticeandof
103Ibid.,751.104BorgesreturnstothissamecouplingofBuberandShakespeareinalaterpoemtitled“TheThingIAm”,in:HistoriaDeLaNoche(BuenosAires:Emece,1977).105ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,751.
102
adversity.ThiswereadinGogundMagog.106
Intheselines,BorgesparaphrasesanentireparagraphfromBuber’slecture“TheFaithof
Judaism.”107
Not“IamthatIam”asallegedbythemetaphysicians—Goddoesnotmake
theologicalstatements—buttheanswerwhichhiscreaturesneed,andwhich
benefitsthem:“IshallbethereasIthereshallbe”(Ex.3:14).Thatis:you
neednotconjureme,forIamhere,Iamwithyou;butyoucannotconjureme,
forIamwithyoutimeandagainintheforminwhichIchoosetobewithyou
timeandagain;Imyselfdonotanticipateanyofmymanifestations;you
cannotlearntomeetme;youmeetme,whenyoumeetme.108
InBorges’footnotetotheselinesfrom“HistoryoftheEchoesofaName”hetiesBuber’s
understandingofHasidismbacktothe“strangeroomofthespirit,”stating:“Buber(WasIst
derMensch?1938)writesthattoliveistoenterastrangeroomofthespirit,whoseflooris
aboardonwhichweplayaninevitableandunfamiliargameagainstachangingand
sometimesterrifyingadversary.”109Borgesdoesnotelaborateonthisconnectionashe
perceivesit.ButhesuggestsaninterpretationofBuber’snovelGogundMagog,110whichis
inlinewiththeunderstandingofHasidismhefindsinBubermorebroadly.TheHasidic
master,occupyingthisroomofthespirit,isforcedtocontendwithaterrifyingadversary.
106Ibid.107Thislecturewasdeliveredin1928andreprintedin:MartinBuber,IsraelandtheWorld:EssaysinaTimeofCrisis(SchockenBooks,1948).Thesameappearsin:KonigtumGottes(Berlin:Schocken,1932).108TheWritingsofMartinBuber,261.Emphasisintheoriginal.109Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,751,ff.1.110MartinBuber,GogUndMagog:EineChronik(Heidelberg:Schneider,1949).
103
Theambiguitythatsurroundsthisadversaryinthenovel—takingtheformofNapoleon,
butsuggestingadivineagent—theharbingerofindistinguishabilitybetweenoppression
andredemption—istheelusivenessBorgesidentifiesasthesecondechoofGod’sname.
Theambiguityoftheinterlocutor,addressee,referent—thisistheconditionofwritingthat
BuberconceptualizesforBorges,basinghimselfoninterpretationsoftheHasidic
movementandthedialogicalnatureofJewishfaith.Borgestakesthisastepfurtherinhis
questforaproductivepositiontooccupyinhisownsearchforatradition.Theactof
writingalreadyproducesinfinite,unlikely,innumerableandinexhaustiblereferencesto
unknownprecursorswhodeterministicallyemergeassuchinthemomentofwriting.
Writingfromwithinthe“strangeroomofthespirit,”notknowingtherulesofthisgame,
whichobligateonetomakereferencetosomethingoutsidethisspace,without
understandingtheeffectsofsuchreference—atonemomentcreatingaprecursor,at
anothercausingtheemperortocancelhisedict—thisishowonebeginstowritewithout
departing,inapoeticsofintransitivity.
104
SectionOne:
Conclusion
Inconcludingthissection,letusreturntoSaid,andhisexceptionofBorgesfromhisstudy:
“ExceptforBorges’Aleph(whichisanimageofbeginningandofengulfment)nomodern
imagefortheendofwritingatextcanbeanythingbutironic(Yeats...),orapologeticand
pontifical(Gide...),orevasive(Eliot).”1Theviewfromundertheking’stable,likefrom
underthestaircaseinaBuenosAiressuburb,istheviewfromanimpossiblepointof
departure.Thesearenotimagesof“theendofwritingatext,”butoftheimpossibilityofits
beginning.Assuch,theyareexteriortoSaid’sproject.
Itisworthpursuingalittlefurthersuchnotionsof‘exteriority’and‘in-
betweenness’[saysSaid].Theydescribeatransformationthathastaken
placeintheworkingrealityoftheself-consciouswriter.Hecannolonger
accept[...]aplaceinacontinuitythatformerlystretchedforwardand
backwardintime.AlreadyEliothadunderstoodthat‘tradition’wasan
achievementforthefew,notthepossessionofall.Perhaps,also,today’s
writerislesscomfortablewiththeunadornedfactofprecedence[...]and
perhapshecannolongerknowwhatitmeanstostandinadirectlineof
descent.2
WhatSaididentifiesasthepredicamentof“today’swriter,”Borgeshasidentifiedasthe
author’sapproximationofwhathasalwaysbeen—sincethemysticalcreationoftheworld1Said,Beginnings:IntentionandMethod,261.2Ibid.,8-9.
105
throughletters—thepredicamentoneentersintobywriting.Theintellectual-narrator,like
thetexthewrites,onlyformstheir“unadornedfactofprecedence”retroactively.Theyare
notafterandbeforeothertextsbutsidebysidewiththem,in-betweenotherbooks,sideby
sideorin-betweenotherprecursors.Theplaceunderthetable,forwhichR.Nachman
prepares;Borges’roomofthespirit,inwhichwritingandauthorshipinescapably
approximateadeficientDivinity—theseimpossiblepointsofdeparturearethemselves
onlysidebysideorin-betweenhistory.
However,Said’sprojectinBeginningsiscertainlyalsoanhistoricalone,anattempt“to
describetheimmenseeffortthatgoesintohistoricalretrospectionasitsetouttodescribe
thingsfromthebeginning,inhistory.”3Forsomeonelayingunderthestaircaseseeingthe
Aleph,orundertheking’stablebelievingheisaturkey,someonealreadyengulfedin
permanentparabasis,“todescribethingsfromthebeginning”hasnothingtodowith
retrospectionandeverythingtodowithspeculation.Thepointofdepartureisthe
inaccessibilityofapriormoment,ofa“history”andthusofanorigin.Andyet—withthe
inaccessibilityofahistoryatthebeginning,asthepointofdeparture—onemust
nonethelessdepart.HavingoutlinedtheintransitivityofR.NachmanandBorges’position,
wewillseeinthenextsectionthatareconfigurationoftheirrelationto—andlocationvis-
à-vis—“tradition”servedasanattempt,nonetheless,todepart.
3Ibid.,xii.
106
SectionTwo:TheTroublewithTradition
Borges(interjects):IbelieveIowesomethingtoallthebooksI
haveread,andnodoubttomanyIhavenotreadbutwhichhave
reachedmethroughothers.Thatiswhat’scalledtradition,no?
Ihaveinterruptedyou,forgiveme...1
Intheintroductiontotheprevioussection,Istatedthattheconsolidationoftheobject“The
Cabbala”markedthediscursiveconstructionofabreakthatwouldbecentraltothe
categoryofModernHebrewLiterature.Thesiteofthisconstitutivebreakisthe
problematicof“tradition”—theobjectvis-à-viswhichthisbreakisconfigured.The1970s
readersofR.NachmanandBorges,attemptingtobridgethegapbetweencategoriesof
literatureandtraditionthroughtheidentificationof“cabbalisticstories,”areoneaspectof
thereceptionR.NachmanandBorgesshare.Concomitantwiththeefforttolocatetheir
storiesintermsofthisbreakisthetendencytolocateR.NachmanandBorgesthemselves
asfigures“attheedge”ofthisbreak.Ihavealreadycitedthe1906prefacetoBuber’s
GermantranslationofTheTalesofRabbiNachman:
RabbiNachmanofBratzlav,whowasbornin1772anddiedin1810,is
perhapsthelastJewishmystic.Hestandsattheendofanunbroken
tradition,whosebeginningwedonotknow.2
1"JorgesLuisBorges:Córdoba,InviernoDel85,MesesAntesDeSuMuerte,"PluralJan.1989.AlltranslationsfromSpanisharemine,unlessotherwiseindicated,-YL.2Buber,TheTalesofRabbiNachman,3.
107
TraditionasanunbrokenchainthatisnowbrokenistheproblematicthroughwhichBuber
willexpresshisideasaboutJewishmodernismandrenewal.Thistraditionhasanend,at
whichitsfinalfigurestandsastheend.Buber’sdepictionwouldsuggestR.Nachmanstands
atthesamelocationvis-à-vistraditionasdoesthestargazingkingvis-à-visthemonarchic
order—attheendmoment,attheedgeofabreakfromwhichnoreturnispossiblefor“us,”
forBuberandhisreaders.3JosephWeiss,oneofScholem’scloseststudentsandapillarof
earlyBraslavresearch,alsodepictsR.Nachmanasafigure"attheverylimit,atthelimitof
Judaism,whomthefascinationofthelimitandwhatliesbeyondithasovertaken."4For
Weiss,“Judaism”isthenameforthetradition,upontheedgeofwhichR.Nachmanstands.
ForBuber,theimportanceoflocatingR.Nachmanas“thelast,”at“theend,”relatestohis
effortstopresentR.Nachmanasanimportantfigure,fromwhichaculturalrenewalof
Judaismcanbegin.AsMartinaUrbanexplains,Buber’sfocusonR.Nachmanispartofan
effort“tofosteramodelfortheneworratherrenewedJewishconsciousnessenvisionedby
culturalZionism[…]and,concomitantly,[…]thecreationofadistinctiveJewish
modernism.”5TherenewalwouldbeginbylookingbackoveragapbetweenBuberandR.
Nachman,therecognitionofwhichwouldbeconstitutiveofJewishmodernism.Buber
standsattheothersideofthebreak,identifyingR.Nachmanasapointofdeparturefora
newJewishconsciousness—aconsciousnessofhavingbrokenfromtradition,abreakthat
istheverypointofdepartureforthisnewconsciousness.
3FormoreonBuber’sreadersandthecontextinwhichherepresentsR.Nachmanasthemarkerofabreakfromtradition,see:Urban,AestheticsofRenewal:MartinBuber'sEarlyRepresentationofHasidismasKulturkritik.Scholemtoorepresentsthemomentofthisbreak,butmorebroadly,inthetitleofhislecture“Hasidism,thefinalphase,”in:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,NinethLecture4JosephWeiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav(Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1974),99.5Urban,AestheticsofRenewal:MartinBuber'sEarlyRepresentationofHasidismasKulturkritik,4.
108
Buber’sconcernwithendsandbeginningsinR.Nachman’slocationvis-à-vistradition
recallshisownrepresentationofendsasbeginnings.Itisalso,inpart,informedbyR.
Nachman’sself-positioning“attheedge”aswell,instatementssuchas:“herewearenowat
thelimitandedgeofIsraelwherethelimitofIsraelends,foreverythinghasalimitandan
end.”6RepresentationsbyR.NachmanandBorgesofthemselves“ontheedge”willbethe
centraltextsofthissection.Tobegintomakesenseofsuchself-positioning,weneedto
considerthetemporalaspectof“theedge,”whichBuberandRoskiesclearlyimply,aswell
asthespatialsensethatR.Nachmanherealludesto,andwhichwewillseeexplicatedmore
clearlyinchapter4.Thisdoublerepresentationoftheedge,astemporalandspatial,is
wherewewillbegintodiscussR.Nachman’sself-locationvis-à-visthesiteof“tradition.”
InthereceptionofBorgestoo,“theedge”hasplayedanimportantroleinthediscourseof
locatingBorgesandhiswriting.Heretoowewillfindtheedgedenotesbothaspatial
relation—drawinguponquestionsofcenterandperiphery,therelationsbetweenapost-
colony(Argentina)andtheEuropeancenter—andatemporalrelation,whereitdrawson
questionsofpost-colonialhistoryandliterature.Inbothsenses,“theedge”fromwhich
Borgeswritesisconfiguredasaquestionofhisrelationto“tradition,”oralackthereof.
InherbookJorgeLuisBorges:AWriterontheEdge,7BeatrizSarloexplains,“[Borgesis]a
marginal[figure]makinguseofallcultures[…]Fromthemargin,Borgesisabletoplacehis
literatureindialogue,asamongequals,withWesternliterature.Hemadeofthemarginan6Sternhartz,ChayeyMoharan,195.7Sarlo,JorgeLuisBorges:AWriterontheEdge.Translatedas:Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas.
109
aestheticprinciple.”8Sarlodoesnotpassinadvertentlyfrom“theedge”to“themargin.”
ThistransitionencompassesherargumentaboutBorges,thatheencounters“thelimit”of
BuenosAiresasabinarydemarcationbetweencivilizationandbarbarism,betweenurban
andruralepistemologies,ontheoneside,whileontheotherside,abinarydemarcation
betweenArgentinaandEurope,thepost-colonyandthetraditionsofthecolonizer.What
Borgesdoes,statesSarlo,isto“inscribealiteratureatthelimit.”9Throughthisinscription,
Borgesbreaksapartthebinaryepistemologiesof“theedge”andcreatesaspacein-
betweentheoppositions,fromwhichhewillwriteanArgentineliteraturethatisfully,
paradoxicallyinvestedwithboththeparticularityofArgentinaandtheuniversalityof
Europe.10Inthissense,Borges’positioninginthemarginisadefiningtropeforstudentsof
literaturestudyingtherelationbetweentheArgentinelackofliterarytradition(otherthan
thatoftheformercolonizer)andtheirembeddedness(byvirtueoftheircolonialpast)in
thetraditionofEuropeanliterature.
WhattakesplaceinthespaceoftheBorgesian“margin,”Sarloadds,isnotmarginalization,
notthedevaluationofitsoccupants,butrathertheirconstitutionasalternatives.Thisis
Borges’basicoperationinArgentineculture:introducingalternatives—tothecanon,to
reading,totradition.“TheJudaic”playsanimportantroleinBorges’articulationofthis
openingofthelimitintoanin-betweenposition.WhenBorgesdepictsJewsasmarginalin
Europehedoesn’tmeanitisthesenseof“unimportant,”or“excludedfromthecentersof
culturalproduction.”Quitetothecontrary.FiguressuchasSpinozaandHeine—who
8Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas,4.AlltranslationsfromSpanisharemyownunlessotherwiseindicated–YL.9Ibid.,20.10Borgesdeclaressuchintentionsasearlyashisfirstbookofessays,Borges,ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza.
110
BorgesidentifiesasquintessentiallyJudaic11—areso,inhismind,preciselybecauseoftheir
importanceasEuropeanfigures.WhatdrawsBorgestosuchfiguresistheirexistenceasan
alternativewithinthehegemonicculture.
“Marginality”isthetermforthis“positionvis-à-visEurope”thathasbynowbecome
commonplaceinBorgesresearch,asdesignatingtherelationbetweenArgentinaand
Europe.ThisisperhapsinresponsetoSarlo’sbook,whichhaslaidouttheintellectual
frameworkforidentifyingthemarginasapositionquintessentiallyBorgesian.Subsequent
scholarshipinLatinAmericanJewishStudies—indrawingattentiontotheroleBorges’
understandingofJudaismplayedinhisarticulationofthisposition—hasretrojecteda
directanalogytowhatisthenacceptedasanequallyquintessentialJewishposition.12
EvelynFishburnexemplarilystatesthat,inhislecture“TheArgentineWriterandTradition,”
“BorgesputsforwardtheideathatJewshaveplayedsuchanimportantroleintheir
relationshiptoWesternculturepreciselybecauseoftheirpositionofmarginality.”13
Commentingonthesameessay,andinthesameterms,ErinGraffZivinrestatesBorges’
argument:“TheArgentine,asamarginalcitizenoftheWest,isactuallymorecapableof
innovationbecauseofhissimultaneousstatusasinsiderandoutsider.Inorderto
11Thesetwoarementionedinmanytexts,butperhapsmostimportantlyinthecontextoftheirbelongingto“theJudaic,”hementionsHeinein:"Yo,Judío."AndSpinozaintwopoems—“Spinoza”and“BaruchSpinoza”—published,respectivelyin1964and1976.See:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,930.And:ObrasCompletas,1975-1985,151.12Theexceptiontothisstatement,whichhasgreatlyinspiredthepresentstudy,isEdnaAizenberg’spersistentunderstandingof“Jewishmarginality”asaliterary-aestheticprincipleinBorges’writing,andnotasasocio-historicalstatement.EvenwhenBorgesseemstobemakingastatementofthelatterkind.See:EdnaAizenberg,BooksandBombsinBuenosAires:Borges,Gerchunoff,andArgentine-JewishWriting(Hanover:UniversityPressofNewEngland,2002),Ch.7.13EvelynFishburn,"ReflectionsontheJewishImaginaryintheFictionsofBorges,"VariacionesBorges,no.5(1998):152.
111
substantiatehisargumentfurther,Borgesturnstothefigureofthe‘Jew’inWestern
culture.”14
Iwouldlikeattheoutsettosignalsomereservationsaboutsuchstatements.First,oneof
themaingoalsofthepresentstudyistoinvestigatehowthispositionisperceived,
occupied,engagedandgivennarrativeform(byJewsandArgentinesalike).Iwilltherefore
bracketanyprematureimplicationofaself-evident“Jewishmarginality.”Iwanttokeep
thisposition,thisopeningof“theedge”intoanin-betweenlocationinfocushereasan
aestheticallyanddiscursivelyconstructedspaceof,andrelationto,“tradition.”Inother
words,whenBorgesspeaksofJewsas“marginal,”weshouldnotassumethisdesignation
hasafacilereferent.Understandingtheconstitutionofthis“Jewishmodel”(asAizenberg
hastermedit)willrequireanunderstandingofthemanyinterlocutorsBorgesengages,
theirintellectualcontextandthewayinwhichBorgesreadsandmisreadstheir
implications.Alongtheselinesofinvestigationwewillalsoendupaskingif,forthe(mostly
EasternEuropean)JewsBorgeshasinmind,“marginality”waseverthekindofself-
positioningthatBorgeshasfashioneditinto.
WhiletheremaybecompellingresearchthatdemonstratingSarlo’sunderstandingof“the
margin”asanaestheticprincipleforBorges,thisdoesnotsimplytranslateintoanaesthetic
principleofJewishletters.ItiscertainlymyintentiontomaketheargumentthatR.
Nachmannegotiatedhispositionvis-à-vistheproblematicoftraditionthroughasimilar
transitionfrom“theedge”toanin-betweenspace.And,thatR.Nachmanconstructsthis14ErinGraffZivin,TheWanderingSignifier:RhetoricofJewishnessintheLatinAmericanImaginary(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2008),11.
112
spaceinboththesocialandaesthetictermsofJewishthinkersattheturnoftheeighteenth
century.Butthisargumentneedstobemade,notglossedbyananalogyBorgesonlyhints
at.AsIproceedtousethesewords—in-between,margin,edge—myintentionisnottooffer
themasanexplanationbutasatriggerforrecurringandpersistentquestionsabout
location,identificationanddifference.IfindSarlo’sargumentaboutturning“theedge”into
a“margin”averyproductivelensthroughwhichtounderstandR.Nachmanaswell,sinceit
posesthequestionofarelationtotraditionintopographicaltermsthatengagethisrelation
onmultiplelevels—geographical,social,aestheticandepistemological.
ThesecondreservationIhaveregardingstatementssuchasFishburnandZivin’srelatesto
definingarolefor“theJews”inBorges’endeavor.IprefertouseAizenberg’sterm“the
Judaic”(“lojudío”)asreferenttotheobjectBorgescomparativelyengages,ashereflects
uponitsrelationtotheArgentinewriterandhistradition.Idosoinordertoleaveopenthe
questionofBorges’idiosyncraticidentification,prioritizationandselectionofthemes
relatedto“theJews,”inhisconceptualizationof“theJudaic.”Thatistosay,ifwediscover
certaintensionsbetweenBorges’representationof“Jewishmarginality”andourhistorical
knowledgeof“theJews,”wewillbracketitfornow,asitispreciselytherepresentationof
marginalitythatIaminterestedin.
Idon’twanttoaskifJewsweremarginalornot,attheedgeornot,butrather,first,how
BorgesrepresentsthispositionheascribesJews,andthenaskinwhatwaythiscan
illuminatecertainaspectsofR.Nachman’sself-positioning.Theformerconcernswillbe
discussedinchapter3.Thelatterwillbethetopicofchapter4,wherewewillfindR.
113
Nachmanconcernedwithsimilarquestionsofdifferencebetweenanedgeandanin-
betweenthatlaysbeyond,andhisself-positioningintheseterms.HowdoR.Nachmanand
Borgesrepresentthislocation“attheedge,”anditsopeningontoanin-betweenspace,a
“margin”?Howisthisopeningarticulatedintheirwriting?WewillseethatforbothR.
NachmanandBorgesthisisacomplexlocation,equallygeographicandsocial,discursive
andpolitical,aestheticandliterary—anedgethatisbeingdiscovered,anin-betweenthatis
stillinthemaking.
Whatisatstakeinthedifferentiationbetweenedgeandmargin?Thequestioniswhat
happenswhenonereaches“theend,”thatimpossibledeparture,andnonethelessdeparts?
Wheredoesoneendup?Outside,in-between,straddlingalimit?Thesetopographical
metaphorsareascentral,forbothR.NachmanandBorges,totherepresentationofgeo-
politicalforcesastheyaretotherepresentationofsocio-politicalforces,andeven
theologicalandepistemologicalforces,inrelationtowhichtheyarerespectivelydefining
themselvesandtheirlocation.
114
Chapter3:
Locating“TheJudaic”inBorges
In1951BorgesgavealectureintheColegioLibredeEstudiosSuperiorestitled“The
ArgentineWriterandTradition.”1Thiswouldbecomeoneofhisbest-knowndiscussionsof
thequestionofLatinAmericanliteratureanditsplacevis-à-viswhatheperceivedas“the
Europeantradition.”Thislectureisalsoanimportantdiscussionofthesocialpositionand
roleoftheintellectualwriter.Inthislecture,Borgesmaintainsanongoingreferencetotwo
texts.Thefirstisalreadyimpliedinthenameofthelecture.ItisT.S.Eliot’sessay
“TraditionandtheIndividualTalent.”2ThesecondreferenceistoThorsteinVeblen’sarticle
“TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,”3whichBorgesnamesexplicitly
onlytowardstheendofthelecture.TheformerisinvaluableinunderstandingBorges’
thoughtsaboutthechancesofidentifyingorinventinganArgentineliterarytradition,and
theplaceitwouldhaveintheworldofletters.Thelatterreferenceisessentialto
understandingthewayBorges’representationoftherelationbetweenJewishintellectuals
and“theirtradition”informshisself-positioningasawriterandintellectual.AsEdna
Aizenbergnotes,“Borges’applicationofa‘Jewishmodel’totheLatinAmericansituationis
hisown,butthemodelheemploysisborrowedfromanotherthinker[…]theNorth
AmericanThorsteinVeblen.”4
1Borges,"ElEscritorArgentinoYLaTradición."2T.S.Eliot,SelectedEssays(London:FaberandFaber,1934),13-22.3ThorsteinVeblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,"PoliticalScienceQuarterly,34,no.1(Mar.,1919).4Aizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo,53.
115
Thefirstpartofthischapterwilldiscuss“TheArgentinaWriterandTradition”anditstwo
inter-textualreferences,EliotandVeblen.Iwillelaborateupontheparticularsimilarities
BorgesidentifiesbetweentheJudaicandtheArgentinesituation.FromthereIwillproceed
todiscusshisideathatthesesimilaritiesimplyasharedpositionand,therefore,the
possibilitythatacertainwayofactingwithinthisposition(whichhasprovenpropitious
forthemodernformationoftheJudaic)willserveArgentinewritersaswell.Thechapter
willconcludebyaskingaboutthemutuallyconstitutivenatureof“theJew”and“the
Intellectual.”
Tradition:TheHistoricalSense
Inhis1917essay“TraditionandtheIndividualTalent,”Eliotdealswiththeproposed
oppositionbetweenawriter’stalentandawriter’soperationwithinaliterarytradition.
Sayingawriteris“traditional,”heexplains,isseenas“somepleasingarchaeological
reconstruction,[a]comfortablereferencetothereassuringscienceofarchaeology.”5
Traditionisperceivedasdisconnectedfromthewritingofliteratureinthepresent.Onthe
otherhand,hecontinues,when“wepraiseapoet,uponthoseaspectsofhisworkinwhich
heleastresemblesanyoneelse[…]wepretendtofindwhatisindividual,whatisthe
peculiaressenceoftheman.”6Eliotdoesnotsomuchcontestthisoppositionbetweenthe
imitationofarchaicformsandtheabsoluteindividualismofliteraryinnovation.Rather,he
arguesagainstthehistoricalschemesuchanoppositionmightsuggest;thattraditionisa
5Eliot,SelectedEssays,13.6Ibid.,14.
116
thingofthepast,anarcheologicalartifact,whiletalentisathingofthepresent,atotal
breakfromtradition.
AgainstsuchaschemeEliotproposes“thehistoricalsense.”7Forthetalentedwriterthe
pastandthepresentaresimultaneous.8“ThewholeoftheliteratureofEuropefromHomer
andwithinitthewholeoftheliteratureof[one’s]owncountryhasasimultaneous
existenceandcomposesasimultaneousorder.”9Traditionisathingofthepresentand
talentconsistsofforminganinnovativerelationshiptoit,Eliotargues.“Thehistoricalsense”
doesnotundochronology,butliteratureisabletoalterit.
Whathappenswhenanewworkofartiscreatedissomethingthathappens
simultaneouslytoalltheworksofartwhichprecededit.[We]willnotfindit
preposterousthatthepastshouldbealteredbythepresentasmuchasthe
presentisdirectedbythepast.10
YetEliotpresumesanatural,uncriticallinkbetweentraditionandahistoryfromwhichthe
writeroriginates.Hisdiscussiondoesnotaddressthecaseofawriterwhodoesnothavea
clearsenseof“theliteratureof[his]owncountry,”11forwhomthequestionoftradition
remainsundetermined.Inordertobepartofasimultaneousorderinthepresent,forsuch
anordertoallowthealterationofthepastbymeansofthepresent,theremustbeapast,
one’straditionmustfirstbeclearlyidentified.WhatofLatinAmericanwriterssuchas
7Ibid.8ThisideaisalsoexpressedbyMartinBuberin:MartinBuber,IandThou,trans.RonaldGregorSmith(NewYork:CharlesScribner'sSons,1937).ForBuber,thesimultaneousnessofpastandpresentexistsinmomentsofdialogue.WehaveseenBorgesmentionBuber’s“dialogue”asaformofwriting,whenwediscussedhisreadingsofBuberinchapter2.9Eliot,SelectedEssays,14.10Ibid.,15.11Ibid.,14.
117
Borges,whosetraditionmaynotbe(orhasnotbeen)identifiable?
ThelacunainEliot’sarticle—theproblemofawriter’srelationtotraditionwhenitis
undefinedorpossiblynon-existent,whenawriterisnotabletouncriticallyrecognizeor
evenpresumehistradition—concernedBorgesformuchofthefirstdecadeofhiscareer.In
fact,Sarlostates,“thefirstthingBorgesdoesisinventaculturaltraditionforthisex-centric
placethatishiscountry.Thisaestheticandideologicaloperationrunsthroughhisworkin
thetwentiesandthefirsthalfofthethirties,untilHistoriaUniversaldelaInfamia.”12From
hisveryfirstpublicationsBorgesnotonlysetouttoinventthemissingtradition(asSarlo
haspointedout)butalsoattemptedamoretheoreticalreflectionupontheproblemand
imaginedsolutionstothelackofaproperlyArgentinetradition.13
Asearlyashis1926bookElTamañodemiEsperanza14hestatesthat,sinceArgentinadoes
nothaveatradition,hisaimistoinventone.
Therearenolegendsinthisland,andnotasingleghostwalksourstreets.
Thatisourdishonor[…]BuenosAiresisacountry,andwemustfindforit
thepoetry,themusic,thepainting,thereligion,andthemetaphysics
appropriateforitsgrandeur.Thisisthefullextentofmyhope(eltamañode12Sarlo,Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas,4.AlltranslationsfromSpanisharemyownunlessotherwiseindicated–YL.13Borges’effortsdidchangeoverthecourseofthelatethirteenandearlyforties.Hisearlyeffortswereto“invent”atraditionwhilehislattereffortsweretothinkabouttherelationofthistraditiontotheEuropeanone.ForadiscussionofBorges’responsetoWWII,see:Aizenberg,"PostmodernorPost-Auschwitz,BorgesandtheLimitsofRepresentation."ForadiscussionofBorges’intellectualcircleandactivityfromthetwentiestothePeronistEra,see:AnnickLouis,BorgesAnteElFascismo(Bern;Oxford:PeterLang,2007).14Borges,ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza.Reprintedas:ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza(Barcelona:SeixBarral,1994).Theessayforwhichthebookwasnamed,wastranslatedin:OnArgentina,ed.AlfredMacAdamandSuzanneJillLevine(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2010),45-48.Previoustothisessaycollectionof1926Borgeshadpublishedtwobooksofpoetry.Thiswashisfirstbookofessays.ItwasnotincludedinhisCompleteWorks.Infact,itwasnotreprintedagainuntilafterhisdeathin1994.
118
miesperanza).15
BorgesthengoesontorejectwhatwereconsideredproperlyArgentineculturaltraditions
atthetime.
Iwantneitherprogressivismnorcriollismo[…]Thefirstmeanssubjecting
ourselvestobeingalmost-North-Americansoralmost-Europeans,a
tenaciousbeingalmost-others.Thesecond,onceawordforaction[…]is
todayawordfornostalgia(theslackappetiteforthecountryside).Notmuch
fervorineither.16
Borgesdoesnotwanttoimitateothers,nordoeshewanttoencouragenostalgiaforthe
ruralcultureofnineteenthcenturyArgentineranchers.Thesearebothoptionshewill
rejectmorecomprehensivelyin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”aswell.Theformer
hewillcall“playatbeingEuropean”17andthelatter“Gauchescopoetry.”18Butinthemid-
1920shedidnotyetformulatethecomprehensiveargumentof“TheArgentineWriterand
Tradition.”Nor,doesitseem,isthereanyhintofperceivingtheJudaicasamodelfor
dealingwiththisquestion.
Intheprologuetohis1930bookEvaristoCarriego19hemusesofhischildhood
neighborhood:“WhatwasthatPalermolikeorwhatwouldithavebeenbeautifulifithad
beenlike?Tothesequestionsthisbookattemptedtoreply,lessdocumentarythan
15OnArgentina,47.16Ibid.Borgesalludesheretohisfirstbookofpoetry.See:FervorDeBuenosAires:Poemas(BuenosAires:Impr.Serrantes,1923).17SelectedNon-Fictions,425.18Ibid.,420.19EvaristoCarriego(BuenosAires:M.Gleizer,1930).
119
imaginative.”20ThesubjunctiveconditionalBorgesusesinthisquestionplacesthepastina
counterfactualtense.ForArgentinathereisnoanswer,outsideofanimaginedone,forthe
questionofbeingrootedinapast.Borgesmustinventthispastthatiscounterfactual.This
inventiveeffortiswhatSarlohasidentifiedinhisliteraryworksofthetime.Iamnot
concernedwithdiscussingtheseliteraryworksasanythingmorethanbackgroundhere.21
MyintentionistotrackaseriesofreflectionsuponthisquestionthatleadBorgestoits
mostemblematic—and,Iwilldemonstrate,altered—articulationin“TheArgentineWriter
andTradition.”
AfewpageslaterinEvaristoCarriegoBorgesmodifieshiscounterfactualtone.
Iaffirm—withoutaffectedfearnorimaginativeloveofparadox—thatonly
newcountrieshaveapast;thatistosay,anautobiographicalmemoryofit;
thatistosay,havealivinghistory.Iftimeissuccessive,weshouldrecognize
thatwherethereisgreaterdensityofevents,moretimeflowsandthatthe
mostabundantisthatofthisinconsequentialsideoftheworld[…]Time—a
Europeanemotionofmenwhosedaysarenumerous,andasitsvindication
andcrown[sic.]—isofgreaterimprudentcirculationintheserepublics[…]
Hereweareofthesametimeastime.22
TherearetwopointsinwhichthispassageisconsistentwithEliot.First,inordertoinvent
20ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,101.[Emphasisadded–YL.]21ForfurtherdiscussionofBorges’earlyworkssee:Sarlo,Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas.GracielaMontaldo,"Borges:UnaVanguardiaCriolla,"inYrigoyenEntreBorgesYArlt:1916-1930,ed.GracielaMontaldo(BuenosAires:Contrapunto,1989).SylviaMolloy,SignsofBorges,trans.OscarMontero(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1994).22Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,107ff.2.
120
thecontentofanArgentinetradition,Borgesmustalsoaffirmtheexistenceofapastwithin
whichsuchaninventionwillbemanifest.Intheselines,Borgesisconceptualizinga
properlyArgentinepast,whichmaintainsatensionwiththekindofuniversalhistoryhe
willlater—asin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”—identifyasthelocus(orlack)of
Argentinetradition.Second,inthispassageBorgesmaintainsthatsuchaproperly
ArgentinepastisessentialfortheexistenceofaproperlyArgentinetradition.Itisan
attempttoidentifywhatEliotdescribesasthehistoricalsenseoftheliteratureofhisown
country,understoodastheconcomitantidiosyncrasyofacountry’shistorywiththe
idiosyncrasyofitsliterarytradition.ThepointofdeparturefromEliot’sargumentisina
surprisingcompetitivenoteaddedheretothediscussion.Forthefirsttimeinhiswriting,
Borgesrepresents“thepast”asazerosumgame;eitheritisthecasethatEuropehasapast,
fullofnationallyboundidiosyncraticliterarytraditions,oritisthatonlythenewcountries
oftheAmericashaveapastatall.Borgesclearlyoptsforthelatterwhenhestates“herewe
areofthesametimeastime.”23
Severalyearslater,ina1933essaytitled“LaEternidadyT.S.Eliot,”24Borgesquotes
extensivelyfromEliot’sessay,explainingtheideaofthe“historicalsense”byidentifying
“theconcepts[Eliot]attemptstoconsolidateoravoid.”25These,Borgesexplains,arethe
ideasof“progress”and“classicism.”
One[conceptEliotwishestoavoid]istheideaofprogress[…]Indefinite
progressmakesofeverybookthedraftofasuccessivebook:aconditionthat,
23Ibid.24Originally:"LaEternidadYT.S.Eliot,"Poesía1,no.3(1933).Collectedin:TextosRecobrados,1931-1955(BuenosAires:EmeceEditores,2001),49-52.25TextosRecobrados,1931-1955,50.
121
whileitbordersontheprophetic,isfoolishandrudimentaryaswell.26
Thecontraryhypothesis,thatoftheclassics,ismuchmoreinept[…]Onthe
onehanditaffirmsthateruditionandrefinedworkaretheconditionsofart;
ontheother,that[theclassics]haveasecretandlastingsignificance.27
InthisfirstdirectengagementwithEliot’sessay,Borgesalreadysignalsthelimitationof
the“historicalsense”inthat,initsattempttoreconcilethemotionsofhistory,itisentirely
predicateduponadefinitionofthatveryterm,towhichtheLatinAmericanwriter—
individuallytalentedassheorhemaybe—hasnoaccess.Thereisatensionbetweenthe
ideathatawriterisconstantlyprogressing,improving,innovatinguponhisprecursors,and
thethoughtthatthefartherhegetsfromhisprecursorsthefartherhegetsfromthesource
ofhisowntradition.Borges’observationisthattobecaughtwithinsuchtensionsof
historicaltradition,onemustfirstbecaughtwithinanhistoricaltradition.
AftersignalingtheinapplicabilityofEliot’sattemptedreconciliationtohisown
circumstances,BorgesalsoidentifiestheimplicationsofEliot’sthesisforthepossibilityofa
LatinAmericanliterarytradition.
IcometothethesisformulatedbyEliot[…]Itdoesnotproposetochallenge
theaccumulatedclassicalorder,norpromiseitsclientsatalismanthat
foretellsglory[…]Theinfluenceofthepresentuponthepast–isofaliteral
26Ibid.27Ibid.,51.
122
veracity,thoughitmayseemrelativistmischief.28
JuandeCastrodemonstratesthemannerinwhichBorges’selectiveandeditedcitationsof
Eliot’sessayemphasizetheideaofthepresentchangingthepastoverother,morecentral,
argumentsandproposalsEliotmakesintheessay.Borges’citationpresents,“inaway
moreconciseandvigorousthanEliot’soriginal,theargumentsthatjustifythisnotion.”29
ThisessayisalsoanearlysourceforthethoughtsBorgesdevelopsin“TheArgentine
WriterandTradition,”where“theideathatBorgesencounteredin‘Traditionandthe
IndividualTalent,’oftheinfluenceofthepresentuponthepast,hadbecomeanew
proposalaboutliteraryhistory.”30
Itseemsnaturaltoinsert“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”intotheargumentBorges
wasbuildinginhisessaysbetween1926and1933.Thiswouldexplainwhystartingwith
thesecondeditionofhis1932essaycollectionDiscusión,31publishedin1957,“The
ArgentineWriterandTradition”wasaddedtothevolume.Nevertheless,thereare
importantdifferencesinthisfinalarticulationoftheproblemofArgentinetradition.Most
obviously,thecontexthadchangeddramatically.AsAnnickLouisputsit:“Thedecadeof
the1920swasagoldenageforculturalandliteraryjournals[…]Thethirties,ontheother
hand,aremarkedbycrisis,politicizationandpolarizationofthemediaandtheintellectuals
28Ibid.,52.29JuanE.deCastro,"DeEliotaBorges:TradiciónYPeriferia,"IberoamericanaVII,no.26(2007):11.CastrosuggestthisearlyengagementwithEliot“couldbereadasadraftof‘KafkaandHisPrecursors’”(ibid.,9.),inwhichBorgeswillpushthisthesistoitslimits.WewillreturntothislateressaybyBorgesinchapter4.30Ibid.,13.31Borges,Discusión.
123
whilepowerwasviolentlyredistributed.”32The1920ssawtheliberalgovernmentsof
HipólitoYrigoyenandMarceloT.Alvear,butinSeptemberof1930Yrigoyenwas
overthrowninamilitarycoupbyGeneralJoséUriburu,whoeffectivelykickedoffwhathas
beenknownas“TheInfamousDecade”inArgentinehistory.Moreover,bytheearly1950s
whenBorgesdelivered“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”asalectureattheColegio
LibredeEstudiosSuperiores—anintellectualhubofanti-Peronistsentiment—WorldWar
IIhadleftitsmarkonArgentinaandthecountrywashalfadecadeintothepopulistruleof
JuanDomingoPerón.33
Questionsofnationaltraditionhadreceivedgreaterimportanceinthecontextofa
conservativenationalistmovementthathadnowgainedsubstantialpoliticalpowerinthe
country.Inthiscontext,weshouldunderstandthe1951lectureasanopportunity,inwhich
BorgesrevisitshisearlierthoughtsonthequestionofArgentinetraditionandattemptsto
re-articulatethemasacommentaryonthepoliticalmomentinwhichitwasdelivered.His
pointsofreferenceforwhathepreviouslyrejectedas“progressivism”and“criollismo”
becomereferencestoideasheencounteredinmorecontemporaryintellectualcircles.Thus
32Louis,BorgesAnteElFascismo,21.FormoreonArgentineintellectualcirclesinthe1930s,aswellasBorges’publicintellectualactivityinthe‘30sand‘40s,see:MariaTeresaGramuglio,NacionalismoYCosmopolitismoEnLaLiteraturaArgentina(Rosario,Argentina:EditorialmunicipaldeRosario,2013).33EdnaAizenberggoesasfarastoargue:“withouttheconfluenceofHitler,thecollapseoftheWesternorderasheknewit,thenational-fascistrevolutioninhisownArgentina,andthetorture,sodomy,rape,andmassexecutions,theso-sopoetandsharp-tonguedessayistwouldnothavebecome‘Borges.’”(Aizenberg,""I,aJew":Borges,NazismandtheShoah,"339.)WewillreturntothetopicofBorgesandWWIIinthenextchapteronBorges,butmuchofwhathasbeenwrittenonthistopicisbeyondthescopeofthecurrentdiscussion.Forfurtherdiscussionsee:BooksandBombsinBuenosAires:Borges,Gerchunoff,andArgentine-JewishWriting.Especiallychapters7,8&9.FormoreonBorgesandWWIIsee:AnnickLouis,"LaAdhesiónaLaRealidad:LasFiccionesDeBorgesDuranteLaSegundaGuerraMundial,"inElEnigmaDeLoReal:LasFronterasDelRealismoEnLaNarrativaDelSigloXx,ed.GenevieveFabryandClaudioCanaparo(Oxford;NewYork:PeterLang,2007);"BorgesYElNazismo,"VariacionesBorges4(1997).
124
“progressivism”becomes“playatbeingEuropean,”34areferencetoEduardoMallea’s
celebrated1937bookHistoriadeunaPasiónArgentina,35and“criollismo”becomesthe
“Argentinecultoflocalcolor,”36areferencetothePeronistintellectualsadecadelaterand
toofficialstateversionsofArgentinetradition.
Moreover,inhis1951lecture,Borgesmovesawayfromthenecessityofhavingaproperly
Argentinetradition.UnlikeinElTamañodemiEsperanzaandEvaristoCarriego,wherehis
solutionsaretryingtopullsuchatraditionfromimagination,fromconjectureorfromthe
past,in“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”hegoesthroughtheextentoptionsfor
Argentinetraditionsandeventuallyquestionstheverynecessityofhavingones“own”
tradition.Thusfromtheverystartofthelecture,Borgesannounceshisskepticismabout
theexistenceof“theproblemoftheArgentinewriterandtradition.”37Inthediscussionthat
followshebreaksdownthis“appearance,asimulacrum,”38ashetermsit,intothetwo
questionsEliotdealswithaswell.ButBorgesrephrasesthequestions,soastoapply
specificallytothecaseoftheArgentinewriter:(1)whatistheArgentinewriter’stradition?
and,(2)whatshouldbetheArgentinewriter’sproperattitudetowardshistradition?
Bycallingita“pseudo-problem,”BorgesattemptstoadopttheeasytonewithwhichEliot
answersthefirstquestion.Naturally,theArgentinewriter’straditionis“thewholeofthe
literatureofEuropefromHomerandwithinitthewholeoftheliteratureof[one’s]own
34Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,425.35EduardoMallea,HistoriaDeUnaPasiónArgentina(BuenosAires:Sur,1937).Translatedas:HistoryofanArgentinePassion,trans.MyronLichtblau(Pittsburgh,PA:LatinAmericanLiteraryReviewPress,1983).36Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,423.37Ibid.,420.38Ibid.
125
country.”39ThesimulacrumofaproblemarisesforBorgesnotfromtheideathatthereisin
factsuchacoherentwhole,abodyofworkwemightrefertoas“thewholeoftheliterature
ofEurope.”Thisheseemstotakeforgranted.Theproblemisthatthesecondquestion—
namely,whatshouldbetheArgentinewriter’sproperattitudetowardshistradition?—
producestheentanglementofthis“coherentwhole”withthesuggestionthatthereisa
particularlyArgentineliterarytraditioninthefirstplace.Thatis,theparticularArgentine
traditionandtheuniversalEuropeantraditionarecoterminous,andarethus
indistinguishablefromoneanother.IdentifyingtheparticularArgentinetraditionisnot
possiblebecauseitsveryparticularityisasimulacrum.“Myskepticismisnotrelatedtothe
difficultyorimpossibilityofresolvingtheproblem,buttoitsveryexistence,”40Borges
explains.Eliotdoesnotconsideranysuchproblemofparticularity.“Theliteratureof
[one’s]owncountry,”hestates,iscontainedwithin“thewholeoftheliteratureof
Europe.”41ThisrelationshipofcontainmentisnotanissueEliotelaborateson.
ThefirstpartofBorges’lecturereviewsthevariouscontemporarysuggestionsastowhat
theArgentinetraditionmightbe.InhisattempttoseparatethequestionwhetherArgentina
hasaliterarytraditionfromthequestionofitsrelationtoEuropeantradition,Borges
rejectsaspossibleanswersboththeGauchesquegenreofArgentina’snineteenthcentury
ranchers,andtheliterarytraditionofSpain,thefounderoftheRiodelaPlatacolonies.Nor
canheaccepttheopinionthatArgentinahasnotradition,“thatweArgentinesarecutoff
39Eliot,SelectedEssays,14.40Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,420.41Eliot,SelectedEssays,14.
126
fromthepast.”42ThereissuchathingasanArgentineliterarytradition,Borgesasserts;
onethatisbetterperceivedifwedonotconfuseitsidentificationwithitsrelationto
Europeantradition.“WhatisArgentinetradition?Ibelievethatthisquestionposesno
problemandcaneasilybeanswered.IbelievethatourtraditionisthewholeofWestern
culture,”43hestates,repeatingEliotbutwithadifference.
BorgesadoptsEliot’sideaofthesimultaneitywithwhich“thewholeoftheliteratureof
Europe”presentsitselftothewriter.InthismannerBorges’answeravoidsraisingthe
questionofarelationtothewhole.TheArgentinewriter’stradition,hesuggests,isthe
wholeofEuropeanliterature.Theappearanceofapseudo-problembeginswiththe
attempttodividethis“whole”intoparts,andcontinueswiththeattempttolocate“the
Argentinepart”withinthewhole–anattemptthatresultsintheconfusionofthevery
existenceofsuchan“Argentinepart”withitsexistenceasapartofthewhole.
Afteroutlining“thehistoricalsense,”Eliot’sessaymovesfrom“tradition”and“talent”to
“theindividual”anddiscussestheroleoffeelingsandemotionsintheworkofart.Heends
statingthat“thisessayproposestohaltatthefrontierofmetaphysicsormysticism.”44
Borgesseesnoreasontohaltthere.Forhimthereissomethinginherentlymetaphysical
abouttheideathatthepastchangesasaresultofthepresent,andthatthepartandthe
wholeareidentical.HecontinuesEliot’sdiscussionabitfurther.“Ibelievethatthis
problemoftheArgentineandtraditionissimplyacontemporaryandfleetingversionofthe
42Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,425.43Ibid.,426.44Eliot,SelectedEssays,21.
127
eternalproblemofdeterminism,”45hestates.Thisisanoddconnectiontodrawsincethe
ideaofdeterminismistheoppositeoftheideathatthepresentcanchangethepast.
Determinismholdsthatthepastalwaysleads,inevitablyandirrevocably,toasingle
possibleversionofthepresent.Borges,tongueincheek,explainsasmuch.
IfIamgoingtotouchthistablewithoneofmyhands,andIaskmyself:"WillI
touchitwiththelefthandortheright?"andItouchitwiththerighthand,the
deterministswillsaythatIcouldnothavedoneotherwiseandthatthewhole
priorhistoryoftheuniverseforcedmetotouchthetablewithmyrighthand,
andthattouchingitwithmylefthandwouldhavebeenamiracle.YetifIhad
toucheditwithmylefthand,theywouldhavetoldmethesamething:thatI
wasforcedtotouchitwiththathand.46
InBorges’humorousportrayal,“thedeterminists”willalwaysberight,sincetheyare
alwaysonlyaffirmingtheinevitabilityofthepresentamomentafteritpasses.Theyare
unabletopredictwhatwillhappen,butassoonasitdoestheystateitcouldnothave
happenedotherwise.Thissortoflogicwouldmake“thedeterminists”anannoyingly-
always-rightbunch,ifnotfortheaddedfactthat(inBorges’depiction)theybasetheir
claimabouttheinevitabilityofthepresentonthepast.ThisisthepointatwhichBorges
wantstoappropriatethedeterministlogicforhisargument.“Thesameoccurswithliterary
subjectsandtechniques.EverythingweArgentinewritersdofelicitouslywillbelongto
45Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,426.46Ibid.
128
Argentinetradition.”47Ifthepresentcanalterthepast,itisbyretroactivelymakingthe
pastintothatwhichpre-determinesthepresent.Thisretroactivepre-determinationmakes
theArgentinetraditionidentifiable.TheentirehistoryofEuropehasledinevitablytothe
presentmomentinArgentina.EverythingArgentinewritersdoisretroactivelypre-
determined,andformspartofthesimultaneousorderthatisArgentinetradition.
ThusfarwehaveseenhowBorgessuccessfullybracketsthesecondquestion(whatshould
betheArgentinewriter’sproperattitudetowardshistradition?)inordertoanswerthe
firstofhistwoquestions:WhatistheArgentinewriter’stradition?Borgessuggeststhe
ArgentinewriterhasthewholeofWesterncultureashistraditionandmustoperate
therein.Wecomenowtothesecondquestion:Howoughtheoperatewithinthisvast
“simultaneousorder”?TakingupthisquestionBorgeswillintroducehisrepresentationof
theJudaic.
Inhisanswertothesecondquestion,Borgesrecallsthearticle“TheIntellectualPre-
EminenceofJewsinModernEurope”bytheNorthAmericansociologistThorstein
Veblen.48Borgessummarizesthearticle:“[Veblen]saysthatJewsareprominentin
Westernculturebecausetheyactwithinthatcultureandatthesametimedonotfeel
boundtoitbyanyspecialdevotion.”49AnothersocialgroupBorgeshighlightsaretheIrish
withinEnglishculture.“ThefactoffeelingthemselvestobeIrish,tobedifferent,was
enoughtoenablethemtomakeinnovationsinEnglishculture.IbelievethatArgentines,
47Ibid.48Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope."49Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,246.
129
andSouthAmericansingeneral,areinananalogoussituation.”50Borgessuggeststhe
Argentines’attitudetowardEuropeantraditionshouldmimicthatoftheIrishandtheJews.
Actingwithinitwithoutfeelingboundtoit,andwithameasureof“irreverence,”thisishow
BorgeswouldliketheArgentinewritertotreat“thewholeofWesternculture.”
ThoughBorgesonlymentionsthemtowardstheendofthediscussion,itisclearheseesthe
JewsandtheIrishasexamplestoimitate,asculturalgroupscontainedwithinEuropethat
operatewithinitverysuccessfully.WithinthebroadercultureofEurope,themere“factof
feelingthemselves[…]tobedifferent,wasenoughtoenablethemtomakeinnovations.”51
HavinglocatedtheArgentinewriterwithinthewholeofWesternculture,itisthisfeelingof
differenceaswellthatBorgeswishestopromoteamongArgentines.Veblen’s
understandingofthesuccessofJewsinEuropeoffersBorgeswhatheperceivesasan
attractivemodelofculturaldifference.Veblen’stextiscertainlycentralinansweringthe
secondquestion.However,readingthearticleitself,wewillfinditisequallypertinentto
thestructureofBorges’argumentthroughouthisentirelecture.
ThoughBorgesdoesnotmentionitontheoccasionofhislecture,themainconcernof
Veblen’sarticleiswiththeeffectsofZionismonwhathecalls“Christendom.”Inother
momentsBorgesconnectsthisarticlemoredirectlytohisownattitudetowardsZionism,
butthatisnothisconcerninthepresentlecture.Inordertoelaboratehisviewsonthe
effectsofZionism,Veblenattemptstooutline“theconditioningcircumstances[…]the
50Ibid.51Ibid.,426.
130
natureandcausesofJewishachievementinGentileEurope.”52Theoverarchinggoalofhis
articleistocautionthattheintellectualpre-eminenceofJews,asthetitleintroducesit,is
preciselywhatwillbeundonebythesuccessoftheZionistproject,which“isalwaysa
projectforwithdrawaluponthemselves,aschemeofnationaldemarkation[sic.]between
Jewandgentile.”53
Itisnottheprojectofdemarcationper-sethattroublesVeblen.Hiseventualexplanation,
whichBorgesconciselyarticulatedinhislecture,iscertainlyaschemeofdemarcation
betweenJewsandnon-Jews.WhattroubleshimaboutZionismisthat“thererunsthrough
italladominantbiasofisolationandin-breeding.”54Veblenwillattempttodefinethe
termsoftheinteractionbetweenJewandnon-Jewthathavebeensoproductiveinhismind.
Thequestionregardstheconditioningcircumstancesofthispropitiousinteraction,
circumstanceswithoutwhichJewishpreeminencewillsurelydisappear.
InordertoexplainhispredictedoutcomeofZionism,Veblendiscussesthecircumstances
withinwhich“theJewishpeoplehavecontributedmuchmorethananevensharetothe
intellectuallifeofmodernEurope.”55Thiscontributionisabasicassumptionandpointof
departure.Veblenthenproposesaseriesofpossibleexplanationsforthispreeminenceand
rejectsthemonebyone.Havingdeterminedinadvancethatthegroundsforthese
achievementslieinacertainmodeofinteraction—inthecircumstancesofJewishexistence
within,andattitudetowards,gentileEurope—theexplanationsVeblenraisesandrejects
52Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,"34.53Ibid.,33.[Sic.]54Ibid.55Ibid.,34.
131
areallpossibleanswerstoaquestionrathersimilartoBorges’secondquestion:whatisthe
relationtoWesternculturethathasbeensoadvantageousfortheJews?Itisherethata
comparisonofVeblenandBorges’rejectedanswerswillilluminatejusthowmuchBorges’
lecturewasinfluencedbythetrainofthought,throughwhichVeblenexplainshisbasic
assumptionaboutJewishcontributionstoEurope.
ThefirstanswerVeblenrejectsisthat“theJewishstrainitself,raciallyspeaking,can[…]be
heldtoaccountfor[…]thepedigreeoftheJewishnation.”56Inhislecture,Borgesfollows
Vebleninrejectinganyanswerthatdoesnotassume—forArgentinesandJewsboth—that
interactionwithEuropeisinevitableand,furthermore,thattheirsuccessispredicated
uponthemannerinwhichtheyadmitandembracetheinteraction.Theanswertothe
(second)questionregardingtheArgentinewriter’sauspiciousrelationtoWestern
traditioncannotbe“none.”ThefirstanswerBorgesrejectsistheGauchesquegenre,which
attemptstoimitatethepoetryofnineteenthcenturyArgentineranchers(theGauchos).57In
itsparticularisticimitationofsuchnarrowsubjectmatter,theGauchesquegenrewould
onlyrelapseArgentineliteratureintoanobsessionwith“localcolor.”“Theideathatwriters
mustseekoutsubjectslocaltotheircountriesisalsonewandarbitrary,”58Borgesstates.
Worseyet,suchacircumscribedsetofthemesandreferencesproducesliterature,for
whichone“needsaglossaryinordertoreachevenanapproximateunderstanding.”59
Moreover,Borgescontinues,this“cultoflocalcolorisarecentEuropeancultthat
56Ibid.,36.57Formoreonthisgenresee:JosefinaLudmer,TheGauchoGenre:ATreatiseontheMotherland(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002).58Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,423.59Ibid.,421.
132
nationalistsshouldrejectasaforeignimport.”60Thequipatthe“nationalists”isacritique
ofhiscontemporaryPeronistintellectuals.Theideaof“Argentineity”(argentinidad)was
mostnotablyexpressedadecadeandahalfearlierinthecelebratedworkofEduardo
Mallea,HistoriadeunaPasiónArgentina.61Mallea’sideaswerepickedupbyPeronist
intellectuals,whoespousednationalist-essentialistviewsofArgentineidentity.This
essentialismiswhatBorgescallsanobsessionwithlocalcolor.Borges’remark,thatthe
thoughtonemustespouselocalcolorisanentirelynon-localidea,isacommentonthe
inevitableinteractionbetweenArgentinaandEuropeanditsresults.Argentine“local”
ideaswillneverbedetachedfromtheinfluence“foreign”Europeexertsuponthem.62
InVeblen’saccount,Jewishpreeminenceisachievedonlybyembracingtheinteraction
withEurope,notbyattemptingtoavoidordenyit.Thatis,thepreeminenceofJewsisonly
realizedthroughimmersionintheculturefromwhichtheyaretobedifferentiated.“This
intellectualpre-eminenceoftheJewshascomeintobearingwithinthegentilecommunity
ofpeoples,notfromtheoutside[…]themenwhohavebeenitsbearershavebeenmen
immersedinthisgentileculture.”63
ThenextanswerBorgesrejectsisthepropositionthatareturntothehistoricaloriginsof
Argentinamightproducethedesiredtradition.Thissecondrejectionisinlinewiththe
progressionofVeblen’sargument.AsVeblenseesit,“theZionistsaspiretobringtofull
60Ibid.,423.61Mallea,HistoriaDeUnaPasiónArgentina.62FormoreonBorgesandArgentinenationalismduringthe1930sand1940s,see:Louis,BorgesAnteElFascismo.63Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,"37.Emphasismine-YL
133
fruitionallthatmassiveendowmentofspiritualandintellectualcapacitiesofwhichtheir
peoplehavegivenevidencethroughouttheirtroubledhistory.”64Yetthishistoryhasbeen
oneofgrowingdistancebetweentheJewsandtheir“home-bredJewishschemeof
things,”65andtheintellectualcapacitiesVeblendiscussesarepreciselyaresultofthis
distancing.Afterall,“thedaysofSolomonandthecaravantrade[…]arelongpast,”66he
observes.Jewishpreeminencedoesnotstemfromalinktothe“orientaltwelfthcentury
BC,”67whichtheZionistswishtoreviveinordertobringJewishpreeminencetoitsfullest
fruition.Thathistoricallinkis“ofanarchaicfashion[…]itallbearsthedate-mark,‘B.C.’[…]
nolongerofthesubstanceofthosethingsthatareinquiredintobymentowhomtheever
increasinglymechanisticorientationofthemoderntimebecomeshabitual.”68Thehistory
ofJewishpreeminenceisahistoryofmovingawayfromthis“B.C.”trademark.Therefore,
Veblenreasons,anyregressiontoitwillresultinamoveawayfromthepreeminencethat
exists.
ThesecondanswerBorgesrejectsistotheideathattheArgentinewriter’straditionaught
tobetheliterarytraditionofSpain.“Argentinehistorycanunequivocallybedefinedasa
desiretomoveawayfromSpain,asawilleddistancingfromSpain,”69heobjects.Borges
thusconcludes,“thefactthatcertainillustriousArgentinewriterswritelikeSpaniardsis
notsomuchatestimonytosomeinheritedcapacityasitisevidenceofArgentine
64Ibid.,33.65Ibid.,40.66Ibid.,34.67Ibid.68Ibid.,40.69Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,425.
134
versatility.”70ReadingVeblenalongsideBorges’lecturehighlightstheobjectiontosucha
“return”tothehistoricalinheritanceofSpanishtradition(orthedaysofKingSolomon).
Firstly,itisstilltoonarrowapropositiontobethesourceofArgentinetradition.Borges
hasalreadyidentifiedtheArgentine’straditionasthewholeofWesternculture.Spanish
traditionissubsumedbythebroadercategoryhehasalreadyproposed.Secondly,the
“return”impliedbyselectingthisparticularhistoricityisincontrasttothemovementaway
fromparticularistichistory.SearchingforanArgentineapplicationforthesocialstructure
underpinningVeblen’s“Jewishpreeminence,”Borgesisobjectingtotheconstructionofan
historical“returntothesource”thatVeblenidentifieswithZionism.Aswehavestated,the
placeofZionismasanoppositesolutiontotheoneBorgesborrowsfromVeblenisnot
explicitinBorges’lecture.YetthestructureofthelecturemimicstheflowofVeblen’s
argumentbothrhetorically,insurveyingandrejectingsolutions,andinthecontentofthe
solutionsbeingsurveyed.
ThethirdandfinalanswerBorgesrejectsis
theopinionthatweArgentinesarecutofffromthepast;thattherehasbeen
somesortofrupturebetweenourselvesandEurope.Accordingtothis
singularpointofview,weArgentinesareasifinthefirstdaysofcreation;
oursearchforEuropeansubjectmattersandtechniquesisanillusion,an
error;wemustunderstandthatweareessentiallyalone,andcannotplayat
beingEuropean.71
70Ibid.71Ibid.
135
TothisopinionBorgesopposes:“EverythingthathashappenedinEurope,thedramatic
eventsthereinrecentyears,hasresonateddeeplyhere.Thiswouldnothappenifwewere
detachedfromEurope.”72BorgesisreferringtothedivisiveeffectsthatWorldWarIIhadin
Argentina.Thoughthecountryremainedneutralformostofthewar,joiningtheAlliesonly
monthsbeforeitended,thepopularpresswasrifewithdebateoverArgentina’s“natural”
affiliations.73
WhileBorges’objectionisthatsuchprofoundaffectswouldnothavebeenfeltifArgentina
wasdetachedfromEurope,italsoreferencesthedifficultyArgentineshavefeltinbeing
European.ThisexistencewithinEurope,whichatthesametimeisexperiencedasa
difficulty,seguesBorges’lectureintoVeblen’saccountofEuropeanJewry.Borgesdoesnot
rejectthedifficultythatexistsforArgentineswhenthey“playatbeingEuropean.”What
Borgesrejectsinthisthirdansweristheideathatthisfeelingofdifficultyimplies
ArgentinesarecutofffromEuropeandthepast.Tothecontrary,hewillaffirm,asforthe
JewsandtheIrish,thedifficultyinvolvedinthis“play”stemsfromtheveryfactthatitis
inevitable,whileatthesametimealwaysinvolves“feelingthemselves[…]tobe
different.”74
BycomparingtheserejectedanswersweseehowBorges’desiretomimicVeblen’sideasof
72Ibid.73ThisisnottheplaceforahistoryofArgentina.SufficeittomentionthelargewavesofGermanandItalianimmigrationthathadbeenarrivingfordecadesbeforethewar,aswellastheantagonismbetweenBritainandArgentina,whichlaterculminatedintheFalklandswar,inordertosuggestthatArgentina’sallegiancewasanythingbut“natural”toeitherside.FormoreonBorgesandNazisminArgentinasee:Aizenberg,TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges;AntonioGómezLópez-Quiñones,BorgesYElNazismo:Sur(1937-1946)(Granada:UniversidaddeGranada,2004).74Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,426.
136
JewishdifferenceinArgentinelettersentailstherejectionofothermodels—perhaps
equallyfeasible—whichVeblentoohaspositedasulteriortothatwhichcomprisesthe
propitiousdifferenceoftheJews.NeitherVeblennorBorgessayitisimpossibletofoundan
ArgentineliteratureontheGauchesquegenreortoestablishaJewishnationinisolation.
TheyonlysaythatsuchsolutionswouldnotbefortuitoustoJewsorArgentines.Equally
feasible,bothVeblen’sdepictionofZionismandBorges’rejectedliterarytraditionswere
certainlyextantsolutions,buttheyareunderstoodasmodelsofisolationratherthan
interaction.ThereisaparticularsocialstructureofinclusionanddifferencethatBorges
sees(throughVeblen)intheJewsofEurope,andwhichheattemptstoimplementinthe
relationbetweenArgentinaandEurope.Butwhatisthissocialstructure,withinwhich
Jewsoperateimmersedwhilefeelingthemselvestobedifferent,andwhichBorgeswantsto
modelfortheArgentinewriter?
WhatisaMargin?
Afterrejectinginherenttraitsandhistoricaloriginsasexplanations,Veblenproceedsto
detailtheexistenceofthoseJewspreeminentinmodernEurope.Veblencharacterizesthis
existenceintwoways.First,itisasocialexistence“withinthegentilecommunityof
peoples,notfromtheoutside[…]immersedinthisgentileculture.”75Thebasicconditionof
successfulJewsinEuropeisthatofimmersioninthesurroundingnon-Jewishculture.
Second,thoughtheyexistwithinthecultureofEurope,Jewsfeelnoattachmenttoit.“In
theircharacterofaChosenPeople,itisnotforthemtotakethoughtoftheirunblest[sic.]
75Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,"37.
137
neighbors,”76Veblenexplains.
WeshouldqualifythisisnottheexistenceofallJewsinEurope.BorgestakesVeblen’s
explanationofindividualpreeminencetostandforthebroaderJewishcommunityin
Westernculture.This,however,isnotVeblen’sargument.“Theculturalheritageofthe
Jewishpeopleislargeandrich,”Veblenadmits,butit“isalsoreputedtohaveruninto
lucubrationsthathavenosignificanceforcontemporaryscienceorscholarshipatlarge.”77
ThegroupofJews“immersedingentileculture”thatVeblenreferstoissomewhat
narrower.ItisonlythoseJewsthatareabletoremovethemselvesfromtheconfinesof
theirowntraditionandenterthegentileculturethewayVeblenhascharacterizedit—as
“immersion”—thatattainpreeminence.
WhatistheauspiciousplaceoftheJewinmodernEurope?“Losinghissecureplaceinthe
schemeofconventionsintowhichhehasbeenborn,”willlandtheJewwithinbroader
Westernculture.Butintellectualpreeminencecomes“atthecost,also,offindingno
similarlysecureplaceinthatschemeofgentileconventionsintowhichheisthrown.”78
“Immersion”isapositionthatisatonceinevitableandunattainabletotheJewwhosteps
outoftheboundsoftradition.“Thereisnowhereelsetogoonthisquest,”79saysVeblen.
ThustheJew“becomesadisturberoftheintellectualpeace,butonlyatthecostof
becominganintellectualwayfaringman,awandererintheintellectualno-man's-land.”80
76Ibid.[sic.]77Ibid.,38.78Ibid.,39.79Ibid.80Ibid.
138
WhattheJewsareabletoachieveisaradicalbreakfromallconventionandtradition.This
endowsJewswiththosetraitsthatwillbenefitthemselvesaswellasmodernEurope,and
whicharesocentraltomoderninquiry,primeamongthem“askepticalframeofmind.”81
ItisimportanttoemphasizethequestionhereisnotoneofidentifyingJewishtraits,butof
evaluatingthem.ThisistrueforbothBorgesandVeblen.Veblenhasarguedthatitis“by
forceofadividedallegiancetothepeopleofhisorigin,that[theJew]findshimselfinthe
vanguardofmoderninquiry.”82Considerthisdividedallegianceisalsotowardstheculture
intowhichtheJewhasenteredandwithinwhichheoperates.Borgesstatesasmuchtoo,in
hisparaphrasingofVeblen;“theyactwithinthatcultureandatthesametimedonotfeel
boundtoitbyanyspecialdevotion.”83Suggestionsofadividedallegiancemaysmackof
anti-Semitism,andbringtomindaccusationsofthekindpresentedagainstAlfredDreyfus
twodecadesbeforeVeblen’sarticlewaspublished.
InherreadingofJewishinfluencesonBorgesAizenbergclearlynotesthis,explainingthat
“forBorges,asfortheNazis,IntellektuellermeantJude.”84Indeed,shedemonstrates,Borges
didnotcombatanti-SemitismbyrejectingthisJewishstereotype,butbyarguingforits
positivevaluation.Borges’polemicagainstNazisminthethirtiesandfortiesdidnotso
muchdisputetheiridentificationofJewishdividedallegianceasitarguedthattheyhad
identifiedasundesirableaJewishtraitsthatisfoundationaltoWesternculture.To
exemplifythispositivevaluation,BorgesoftenreferstonotableJews,whomheregardsas
81Ibid.82Ibid.,38.83Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,426.84Aizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo,112.
139
majorfiguresinWesternculture.HavingdetailedVeblen’sinfluenceonBorges’
understandingofWesternJewry,wewillnotbesurprisedtofindthatthepoetryofHeine
andthephilosophyofSpinozaremainthroughouthislifeprimeexamplesofJewishwriting,
andthenamesofSpinozaandHeinearetoBorgesalmostsynonymouswith“Jew.”
Forinstance,whenaccusedbytherightwingpublicationCrisolin1934of“Jewishancestry,
maliciouslyhidden,butpoorlydissimulated,sinceevenhispoemshavethatPsalmist
accentcharacteristicofHebrewpoetry,”85Borgesresponds:“Iamgratefulforthestimulus
providedbyCrisol,buthopeisdimmingthatIwilleverbeabletodiscovermylink[…]to
Heine,Gleizer,andthetenSefiroth;toEcclesiastesandChaplin.”86ThatChaplin’sJudaism
wasarumormatterslittlemorethanthatSpinozawasexcommunicated,orthatHeine
convertedtoChristianity.Thesefactsonlymakethemallthemoreexemplaryofthesocial
positionBorgescitesfromVeblen.TheyaremoreJewishthanany,preciselyforexistingin
thespacebetweenadeparturefromJewishtraditionand(impossible)fullinclusioninto
Europeanculture.
IfVeblen’sargumentsoundslikeaprogramforJewish“secularization”(ormodernization),
that’sbecauseitis.Veblenisexplicitlysuggestingthat(inlieuofwhatheseesasthe
isolationistnation-stateprojectofZionism)themostpropitiouspathforJewsistoleave
theirtraditionbehindandembraceinevitableyetunattainableintegrationintomodern
Europe.ThepaththatrunsalongthespacebetweenalostJewishtraditionandan
85A.H.,"CarácterDeEstasNotas,"Crisol,Jan.30,1934.86Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,110-11.
140
inaccessibleWesternculture“canhave,andalreadyhashad,fortunateconsequences,”87
(asBorgesputsittohisArgentinelisteners).
TheinevitabilityofJewish“immersion”inWesterncultureisthebasicassumptionof
Veblen’sprogram.VeblendoesnotfeartheisolationismofJewswithintheWestwillbe
damagingtomodernEurope.Heseesthisisolationasimpossible.“Nounbiasedethnologist
willquestionthefactthattheJewishpeopleareanationofhybrids;thatgentilebloodof
manykindshasbeeninfusedintothepeopleinlargeproportionsinthecourseoftime.In-
deed,noneofthepeoplesofChristendomhasbeenmoreunremittinglyexposedto
hybridization,”88hestates.ThatiswhyVeblenperceivestheZionistsasathreattothe
progressofEurope.InstarkcontrasttothehybriditythathasbeensobeneficialtoEurope,
theZionistsbelievethey“areduetoachievemuchgreaterthingsandtoreachan
unexampledprosperitysosoonastheyshallhaveachancetofollowtheirowndevices
untroubledwithintheshelteroftheirownfrontiers.”89Theiraimisthusdouble;toachieve
muchgreaterthingsthantheyhavebeenabletoinDiaspora,andtoestablishtheirown
demarcationandfrontiers.“Itisnotsomuchaquestionofwhatisaimedat,asofthe
chancesofitsworking-out,”90Veblenqualifies,suggestingwemightreadthisnotonlyas“a
question”butalsoasawarning.
This“schemeofnationaldemarkation[sic.]betweenJewandgentile”91threatenstomake
87Ibid.,426.88Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope,"35.[Sic.]89Ibid.,34.90Ibid.91Ibid.,33.[Sic.]
141
visiblethedifferencebetweenJewandgentile,theinvisibilityofwhichiskeytothesecond
basicassumptionofVeblen’sprogram,theassumptionthatfullintegrationofJewsinto
Europeisimpossible.ForVeblen,thisdemarcationmustremaininvisible.Hisambitionis
tomaximizethecontactbetweenJewsandgentileculture.Themorecontactexiststhe
morebothwillbenefitfromtheprogressthatwillbeachieved.Andforthisambitionto
continuefuelingJewishdeparturefromtradition,immersionmustappeartobefully
possible.Itistheencounterwithaninvisibleimpossibilitythatisakeyelementin
producingthedriveofprogress.Theconditionofsustainableprogressispreciselythe
invisibilityofthatsamedemarcation,whichrendersimmersionfinallyimpossible.
Whatisatstakeisthe“intellectualadvanceofChristendom,”92Veblenmakesclear.The
threatisthat“astheJewishpeopleinthiswayturninwardonthemselves,their
prospectivecontributiontotheworld'sintellectualoutputshould[…]fairlybeexpectedto
takeonthecomplexionofTalmudiclore.”93Ashisargumentprogresses,Veblenbecomes
lessconcernedwithstatingtheadvantageJewswillfindintheircontinuedDiaspora
existence,andfocusesmoreonthebenefits“Christendom”hasfoundinit.“Itisplainthat
thecivilizationofChristendomcontinuestodaytodrawheavilyontheJewsformen
devotedtoscienceandscholarlypursuits.”94TheJewsareirreplaceabletoEuropean
culture,thoughtheirparticularintellectualcontributionstemsfromtheirbeingun-place-
ableinEuropeancultureaswell.“ThereshouldbesomelosstoChristendomatlarge,and
92Ibid.,38.93Ibid.,42.94Ibid.,34.
142
theremightbesomegaintotherepatriatedChildrenofIsrael,”95Veblenfinallyadmits.
HowdoesVeblenexplainthattheJewswhoare(iftheyshouldchoosetoremain)
irreplaceable,arealsothosethatcannotbefullyplaced?Itisapersonal(perhapsa
national)tragedythatfuelsEurope’sinnovators.Christendomisratherapassivecharacter
inVeblen’snarrative.Itsdesireforprogressfindsapromisingpartnerinanother’sactive
search—forfromtheveryfirststep,thatofleavinghistradition,theJewhasbeenthe
activepartner—andenjoysthefruitofthatother’sstruggles.Whatmakesthis
entanglementsotragicinVeblen’saccountisthatthereasonsitisimpossibleforJewsto
becomefullyincludedinWesternculture,tothepointoflosingallJewishidentification,lie
intheJewsthemselves.ThepossibilityofgentileresistancetoJewishintegrationisonly
hintedatinanaccidentalwordplay,ashestates:“Themostamiableshareinthegentile
community'slifethatislikelytofallto[theJew’s]lotisthatofbeinginterned.”96
OfcoursethereisanairofremorsetoVeblen’sentirelocution.Itwaspublishedtwoyears
aftertheBalfourDeclarationof1917madepublicthesupportoftheBritishEmpireforthe
kindofJewish“repatriation”projectVeblenopposed.Thoughhefocusesmoreontheeffort
thanonitspredeterminedimpossibility,theredrawingofthedemarcationbetweenJew
andgentilehasalreadybeensignaled.Inthatsense,Veblen’sarticlecanbereadas
somethingofaretrospectiveaswell;aretrospectivetothegreattragedyoftheJewsthat
hasfueledmodernEurope’sintellectualpursuits.Asaretrospective,Veblen’sargument
95Ibid.,42.96Ibid.Thepunisontheword“interned.”Themostamiablesharemaybeaguildinternshiporaninternmentcamp.
143
markswhatheperceivesasthefailureofemancipationideology.TheZionistmovementis
forhimastatementaboutthefailureoftheEuropeanprojectofintegration.Thedifference
hesubsumesinhisargumentisbetweenthelateeighteenthcenturyperceptionofJewish
traditionalismastheoppositiontointegrationandhiscontemporaryperceptionofZionism
astheoppositiontointegration.Wewillhavemoretosayaboutlateeighteenthcentury
perceptionsofemancipationideologybyJewishleadersinthenextchapter.Forthe
moment,IwouldliketoemphasizethedualarticulationinVeblen’sarticle,ofaprogram
andaretrospective,ofthefutureandthepastofwhathecallsJewish“immersion.”
Onanindividuallevelthetragedyisbeingstuckbetweenalosttraditionandan
unacceptingbroaderculture.TheresolutionofthisJewishtragedy,Veblenstates,would
surelybetragicforEurope.Neitherfullintegrationnorrefusaltodepartfromtradition
wouldturnJewsintothoseintellectualinnovatorsheperceivesthemtobe.Their-
resolvabilityoftheindividualJew’spredicamentiswhatdrivestheircontributionto
progresspreciselybecause“thereisnowhereelsetogo.”97
Onthecollectivelevel,thetragedyisthefailureofemancipation,duetothereluctanceof
theJewsthemselvestoleavetheirtraditionbehindenmasse.ThusZionism,inhis
argument,isanothermomentofcollectiverefusaltointegrate.Whilesuccesshasbeen
individual,failurehasbeencollective.Veblen’sexplanationofJewishpreeminenceonly
accountsforoneindividualatatime.ItneveroccurstoVeblentoaskaboutthepossibility
ofgroupexistenceaftersuchanexodusfromtradition.Heiswritingabout“theJews,”but
97Ibid.,39.
144
wouldtheyremain“theJews”afterfollowingthroughwithhisprogram?
Acommunity,itseems,couldnotleaveallitstiesoftraditionandcustombehind,andstill
maintainitsgroupdesignation.“Theyareneitheracomplaisantnoracontentedlot,these
aliensoftheuneasyfeet;butthatis,afterall,notthepointinquestion,”98statesVeblen,
somewhatskirtingthequestionofwhatthelargescalesuccessofhissuggestionwould
mean(orwouldhavemeant)forJewsasagroup.Wemightnonethelessofferananswer:
TheresultoftheirbelongingtotheJewishgroupwouldbecomeitscause;thepreeminence
attainedasanoutcomeoftheirparticularcircumstancesasJewswouldbecometheonly
markeroftheirgroupexistence,thesoulsourceofanyseparatenessJewswouldmaintain
fromEurope.99Veblenendshisarticlewithoutcommentingontheshiftshisargument
makesbetweentheindividualandthecollectiveaspectsofintegration,norbetweenthe
presentandthepasteffortsatemancipation.
ThechallengeBorgestakesonin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition,”istopickupwhere
Veblenleftoff;totakeade-factoexplanationforJewishpreeminence,whichbasesitselfon
theirattitudesandconditionsofinteraction,andturntheseattitudesandconditionsintoa
programmaticapproachtowardsEurope.Borges’lecturesignalsthisattemptintwoways.
First,heidentifiestheArgentinewriter’sconditionofactingwithinT.S.Eliot’s
simultaneousnessofwesterntraditionasthepotentialforstimulatingthekindof“divided
allegiance”thatVeblenpraises.Second,thissenseofdifferencefrom(andlackofdevotion
98Ibid.99ThequestionofwhetherthemerememoryofadeparturefromtraditioncansufficetoformthebasisofgrouprecognitionwillbetakenupbyRabbiNachmanishis“TaleoftheMaddeningWheat”and“ParableoftheTurkeyPrince,”whichwewilldiscussinChapter3.
145
to)Europeantradition,whichhasgivenrisetoJewishskepticism,will,inBorges’program,
becomeArgentine“irreverence.”
TheJew’sduallocation,vis-à-vishisowntraditionandvis-à-visbroaderEuropeanculture,
iswhatdrawsBorgestoVeblen’sprogramasamodelfortheArgentinewriter.However,
theunattendedshiftfromindividualtocollectiveinVeblen’snarrativeisunproblematically
assumedinBorges’suggestionforArgentinaaswell.ForBorges,certainJews(Spinoza,
Heine)maybeexemplaryofalocationhehasidentifiedthroughVeblen,butBorges’ability
tomovefromaJewishexampletoaJewishmodelrevolvesaroundthecollectiveimitability
ofthislocation.Beyondimploringhisaudiencetobe“irreverent”towardsEuropean
tradition,Borgesneverreallyexplainshowtheindividual’spositionwillbeimitatedbya
collective.
Thedichotomybetweenindividualimmersionandcollectiveisolationcontinuedtoexistin
Borges’variableattitudestowardsJewishDiasporaexistenceandtheStateofIsrael
respectively.ThisdichotomyisaparadigmthatshapesmanyofBorges’writingsonJews
andIsrael.ButwhenconsideringtheJewishDiasporainrelationtotheArgentinewriter,
BorgesgeneralizestheconditionsVeblenlaysout,underwhichindividualJewsmay
becomepreeminentinEurope,toapplytotheconditionsofJewishDiasporaexistenceinits
entirety.ExpandingVeblen’sargumentfromtheindividualtothegroupiskeyforits
adaptationtotheArgentinecondition.Afterall,Borgesisconcernedwithsomethingofa
nationalliteratureinArgentina,notmerelywiththesuccessofthisorthatindividual
writer.However,“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”doesnotresolvetheproblemof
146
maintainingagroupidentityfollowingsuch(necessarilyindividual)immersion.100
TheconcernforthepossibilityofJewishgroupexistenceafteradeparturefromthe
traditionalstructureofcommunityis,forBorges,alsothequestionofapossibleArgentine
traditiontruebothtotheirunavoidableinclusioninEuropeandtheimpossibilityofever
fullyaccomplishinganimmersionintoWesternculture.TheexpansionofVeblen’s
argumentsignalsBorges’maintainedconcernfor“theJewishquestion”asaninseparable
partofhisinvestmentin“theArgentinequestion.”InBorges’thoughtandwriting,theState
ofIsraelthusbecomesrepresentativeoftheantithesisofhisprogramforArgentina,bothin
thatitofferedtheoppositeoutcometothedesiredintegration,andinthatitnegatedthe
DiasporaexistenceuponwhichtheJewishmodelhehadadoptedfromVeblenwasbasedin
thefirstplace.101Veblen’spresenceinBorges’thoughtaboutIsraelremainedevident
throughouthiscareer.Ina1960essaycommemoratingMexicanwriterandintellectual
AlfonsoReyes,justafewmonthsafterhisdeath,BorgesrecallsVeblen’sarticle.
In1919ThorsteinVeblenaskedhimselfwhytheJews,inspiteofthemany
andnotoriousobstaclestheymustovercome,standoutintellectuallyin
Europe.Ifmemorydoesnotdeceive,heendsupattributingthisprimacyto
theparadoxicalsituation,inwhichtheJew,inWesterncountries,dealswitha
culturethatisforeigntohimandinwhichitisnotdifficultforhimto
innovate,withgoodskepticismandwithnosuperstitiousfear.It’spossible
100ThischallengeisonethatgreatlyconcernedR.Nachman,andwillbediscussedinchapter3.101FormoreontheantithesisoftheArgentineandIsraelinationalprojects,see:YitzhakLewis,"Borges,ZionismandthePoliticsofReality,"VariacionesBorges35(2013).
147
mysummarymutilatesorsimplifieshisthesis;justasheputsit,itwould
applyparticularlywelltotheIrishintheSaxonsphereortous,Americansof
theNorthoroftheSouth.ThislastcaseistheoneI’mconcernedwith;initI
find,orwanttofind,thekey[…]
Weareheirstotheentirepastandnottothehabitsorpassionsofthisorthat
lineage.LiketheJewofVeblen’sthesis,wedealwithEuropeanculturewith
noexcessofreverence.102
WhileBorges’answerlargelyrepeatshisargumentin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition,”
italsostatesmoreexplicitlytheexpansionofVeblen’sargumentfromindividual
circumstancestogroupidentity.“LiketheJewofVeblen’sthesis,wedealwithEuropean
culture,”103Borgessummarizes,abstracting“TheJew”enoughsoastostandforthe“we”
thatisArgentina,andforgettingitisonlymodernEuropeVeblentalksabout.104Inamuch
laterinterviewfrom1978BorgeswillrecallVeblenagain.Thistimealsoomittingthefact
thatitistheJewsofEuropeVeblenwastalkingabout.
Diamant:WhenyouthinkofIsraeltoday,doyouconsideritanatural
extensionoftheJewishPeopleoftheBible?
Borges:I,truthfully,amnotaZionist,butIwanttoexplaininwhatsense.
102JorgeLuisBorges,"AlfonsoReyes,"Sur264(1960):1.103Ibid.104Veblendoesn’ttalkaboutpre-modernsocialconditionsandtheimplicationisthatJewishpreeminencewasnotextentbeforemoderntimes.
148
SometimeagoIreadaverynicearticlebyVeblenabouttheintellectual
superiorityofJews.Noteit’snotaboutaracialsuperiority,butrather
intellectual.Andthisisdue–heexplains–tothefactthateveryJewhastwo
cultures,twotraditions:histraditionandthetraditionoftheplaceinwhich
hewasborn.Andthat’swhatmakesthemmuchricher.IfearIsraeltodaywill
beacountrylikeallothers.Obviouslythatshouldn’tmattertoomuch,sinceit
isaverysmallcountry,therewillalwaysbeJewsintheworldthatwillbe
moreimportantthantheIsraelis.105
Borgesanswersthequestionquitedirectly.Whatisevidentisthattheprogrammatic
aspectofVeblen’sargumentremainedwithhimthroughouthiscareer,asdoesthe
associationbetweenVeblen’sarticleandhisunderstandingofZionism.WhileBorges’
answersstillmakenoreferencetothepossibilityofgroupexistencethatVeblen’s
argumentmayormaynotallowforDiasporaJewry,Veblen’sargumentdoesremaincentral
toBorges’attitudetowardJudaismaswell.AsAizenbergnotes,whenBorgestellshis
interviewersthatheregretsnotbeingJewish,orthathisbooksare“profoundlyJudaic,”he
isreferringlargelytotheJewandtheJudaismofVeblen.106
Thetensionsofindividualandcollective,inevitabilityandimpossibilityintroducedby
VeblencontinuedtoinfluenceBorges’self-fashionedinheritanceoftheJewishtradition.
BlockdeBeharrecognizesthesetensionsinBorges’insistenceon“thefirmnessofaJewish
105MarioDiamant,"UnaConversaciónConJorgeL.Borges"Plural3,no.19(Nov.1978):6.Ihavetranslatedas“important”Borges’useoftheword“importante”inSpanish,whichhasseveralmeanings:important,valuableandsignificant.106Aizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo,54.
149
netthatassimilatedculturaldifferencesinasingleidentity,whosedifferentiatingfeatureis
preciselythattheyarenotdifferent.”107Borgesalsocontinuedtochallengethesplithesaw
betweenthewayVeblenpresentedthesetensionsandtherealityheencounteredinthe
StateofIsrael.Ina1971interviewinanticipationofreceivingtheJerusalemPrizelaterthat
year,hebrieflyreportsadiscussionhehadwithIsraeliwritersinhis1969visit.
AreyoufamiliarwiththenewIsraeliliterature?
Borges:Idon’tknowHebrew,butIhavespokentoIsraeliwriterswho
amazedme.Ihadsupposedtheliterarytendencywouldbe,naturally,to
approachthePsalms,theSongofSongs[…]Butno.Theytoldmetheydidnot
wanttocopyKingDavid.Theywantedtobemodern.Iansweredthemthat
beingmoderndidnotseemobligatorytome.Fromthemomentyouareborn
youaremodern,likeitornot.Whyimposeuponyourselfa
contemporaneousness,whichyoualreadypossesinanyevent?108
Thewritershemetseemtoexpressadesireforprogressakintothatof“thewayfaringJew”
inVeblen’saccount.ButBorgesrejectsthis.Ontheotherhand,theiranswerclearlysignals
adesiretodepartfromEliot’sschemeof“thehistoricalsense”aswell.WhileArgentina
strugglestofinditsplacewithinEliot’sschemeof“thehistoricalsense,”Borgesencounters
anIsraelfullofJewishwriterswhoareentirelyinpossessionofsuchasenseandinsiston
107BlockdeBehar,"AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesasReaderofMartinBuber,"188.108FromaninterviewpublishedinRaíces,1971.Quotedin:Borges,ElJudaìsmoEIsrael.2ed.,Sefaradica(BuenosAires:CentrodeInvestigaciónyDifusióndelaCulturaSefardí,1999),168-69.
150
exitingitateveryopportunity.ThemostinterestingpartofthisexchangewiththeIsraeli
writersisthatBorgesseemstoimplythathehasanideaofhowoneaughttowritefrom
withintheJewishtradition.109Thisideaonlyhintedatherecertainlyhadaneffecton
Borges’writing.
Whattheseinterviewsaddtoourreadingof“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”isthat
theydemonstratetheequivocationsBorgesmakesregardingVeblen’sargument.First,he
conflatesbetweenindividualandcollective,presentingVeblen’sargumentregarding
preeminentindividualsasrelatingtotheJewishDiasporaatlarge.Second,Borgesseemsto
assumethattheprogramVeblenwaspromotinghasalreadyhappened.Thatis,theJewish
DiasporainhisaccountoccupiesthespaceVeblenonlyhopedtheywouldendupin.Lastly,
BorgesidentifiesintheJewishDiasporathatinevitablybutimpossiblyintegratedgroup
VeblendepictedastheantithesisofZionism.BorgesthusaccordswithVeblenonthe
questionofZionismbeingopposedtothosetraitshevaluesinJewishexistence.Buthe
differsfromVebleninthatheseemstothinkintegrationhasbeensuccessfulfortheJewsin
theDiaspora,thatasagrouptheyhaveattained“intellectualsuperiority”byhavingtwo
traditions;theonetheyleftbehindandtheonetheyoperatewithinwithnoparticular
feelingsofattachment.
Thefactthat“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”endswithoutclarifyingthequestionof
individualandcollectiveisinpartareflectionofBorges’relianceonthestructureof
Veblen’spaperforhisownlecture.Moreimportantly,however,itreflectsasimilarly109ThereaderwillrecallthattheeditorsofCrisolalsomentiona“PsalmistaccentcharacteristicofHebrewpoetry”intheiraccusationofBorges’Jewishancestry.See:A.H.,"CarácterDeEstasNotas."
151
unresolvedtensioninBorges’ownargument.Whilethetitleofthelectureaddressesa
single(“the”)Argentinewriter,thecollectivelanguageBorgesuses(“weArgentines”)
presumesagroupthatcanandshouldmimicVeblen’sJewishcollective.Borges’lecture
thuslaysoutanunderstandingofArgentinetraditionandanattitudetowardsitthathe
himselfintendstomaintain.Thequestioniswhomdoeshemeanby“we”?Towhomdoes
thislectureofferasolutiontothequestionoftradition?Whilethereisageneralizing
instincttotalkabout“weArgentines,”bothcontextandcontentmakeclearthatthe
addresseesofthislectureareotherwritersandpublicintellectuals.WhenBorgesproposes
theJewsasamodeltoimitate,heisoutliningthesocialpositionofthesameintellectual
writerwehaveseenhimdealwithin“AVindicationoftheCabbala.”Veblenisn’tconcerned
withtheintellectual,butthein-betweenlocationheoutlinesforBorgesiscommontothe
Jewandtheintellectualand,inmovingfromexampletomodel,isreadbyBorgesasa
programforbecominganintellectual.Heiscertainlynotthefirsttoidentifythein-between
positionoftheintellectual,norishethefirsttorelatesuchapositionto“theJew.”To
repeatAizenberg’sinsight:110whenBorgestellshisinterviewersthatheregretsnotbeing
Jewish,orthathisbooksare“profoundlyJudaic,”heisreferringlargelytotheJewandthe
JudaismofVeblen,andthus,byextension,totheroleoftheintellectual.
TheIntellectual
Aswehavediscussedinreading“AVindicationoftheKabbalah,”Borges’representationof
theJudaiciscloselylinkedtotheunderstandingofhisownroleasanintellectualauthor.
110Aizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo,54.
152
Thislinkisalsoevidentin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”where,inadditionto
Cabalistictropes,therepresentationofasocialpositionparticularlyJudaicispartofBorges’
understandingofhisroleasanArgentinewriter.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatquestions
oftheintellectual’sroleinsocietywerefeltallthemoreintenselyduringthePeronera,in
whichthislecturewasdelivered.Borges’ownclasheswiththePerongovernmentare
publicloreinArgentina.111
However,thecontributionofthefigureof“theJew”toadefinitionoftheintellectualand
hisrolewasnotspecifictoBorges’immediatecontext.Borgeswaspartofalarger
contemporaneousconcernwithidentifyinganddefining“theintellectual.”Thisconcernhas
implicatedthesocialpositionofJewsformuchofitsintellectualhistory.ForJulianBenda
andAntonioGramsciaswell,twoofVeblen’smostprominentcontemporariesto
conceptualize“theintellectual,”representationsof“theJew”arepartoftheir
conceptualizationsof“theintellectual”andhisrole.Thus,forGramsci:“Religion,
Freemasonry,Rotary,Jews,etc.,canbesubsumedintothesocialcategoryof‘intellectuals,’
whosefunction,onaninternationalscale,isthatofmediatingtheextremes,of‘socializing’
thetechnicaldiscoverieswhichprovidetheimpetusforallactivitiesofleadership,of
devisingcompromisesbetween,andwaysoutof,extremesolutions.”112Theconceptual
111TheepisodeBorgeshimselfrepeatsoftenisofbeingfiredfromhisjobatthenationallibraryandplacedasaninspectorofchickensinthepoultrymarket.Adetaileddiscussionoftheintellectualcirclesoftheeracanbefoundin:Louis,BorgesAnteElFascismo.AdiscussionofBorgesandPeronismcanbefoundin:Aizenberg,TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges.112AntonioGramsci,AGramsciReader:SelectedWritings,1916-1935(NewYork:NewYrokUniversityPress,2000),206.
153
proximityoftheJewandtheintellectualisexpressedinNazismaswell,asAizenberghas
noted,“forBorges,asfortheNazis,IntellektuellermeantJude.”113
Veblen,ontheotherhand,wouldnotrecognizethisproximity.Sinceinhisdiscussionof
JewishintegrationintoEuropeherepresentsattemptsatintegrationasfailedandresisted,
Veblendoesn’tleaveroomforseeingtheJewishcollectiveasoccupyingthespaceand
functionofintellectuals.TheconcordancebetweenGramsci,BorgesandNazismonthe
proximityofJewandintellectual,coupledwiththeagreementbetweenVeblenandBorges
onthein-betweennatureofthesepositions,suggestthereismoreathandthanaquestion
ofPhilo-SemitismandAnti-Semitism.ThequestioniswhetherthelongcenturyofJewish
existenceinEurope,betweenlateeighteenthcenturyemancipationandtheearlytwentieth
centurysituationofJewsinEurope—withtheirdualallegiances,lackofattachmentto
broaderculture—ispresentedasastoryaboutthesuccessorthefailureofintegration.
FramingthequestioninthesetermswillexplaintheNaziattitudetowardsIntellektueller,
sincetheytoo(liketheirJewishapproximations)aretheproductofafailedprojectof
integration.114
113Aizenberg,Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo,112.114ForNazismthiswouldbeanationalistprojectofintegration,towhichtheintellectualsresisted.ThisisnottheplacetoelaborateonNaziideologyasaprojectofsocialemancipationthroughracialpurification.FormoreonNazismsee:BoazNeumann,ReiyatHa-`OlamHa-Natsit:Merhav,Guf,Safah(Hefah;Tel-Aviv:Hotsaatha-sefarimshelUniversitatHefah;SifriyatMa`ariv,2002).ForarelatedculturalhistoryofGermanyintheinterwarperiod,see:Li-HeyotBe-RepublikatVaimar(TelAviv:`Am`oved,2007).Formoreonlatenineteenthcenturyanti-Semitismasaresponsetoperceptionsofafailedintegration,see:BrianPorter,WhenNationalismBegantoHateImaginingModernPoliticsinNineteenthCenturyPoland(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).FormoreonthechangingattitudestowardstheJewsofGermanyduringthelongcenturyofemancipationsee:DoronAvraham,in:BoazNeumann,RoniHirsh-Ratzkovsky,andGaliliShahar,eds.,HistoryahBe-LoNahat:BenYehudimLe-Germanim(TelAviv;Yerushalayim:`Am`oved;MekhonLeoBek,2012).
154
Inhismorerecentdiscussionoftheintellectual,PaulMendes-Flohrdescribesanattitude
wemightidentifyascommontoBorgesandVeblen.“‘Ideological’exclusivity:a
conviction—or,atleast,sense,howevervague—thattheJewenjoysauniquedestinyand
roleinuniversalhistory.” 115 ThisexclusivityiscertainlyexpressedbyVeblen,andtakenup
byBorgesinconceptualizinghisownroleasintellectualintermsoftheJudaic.Quitethe
oppositeofVeblen’sargument,however,Mendes-Flohrsuggeststhatweshouldnotthink
ofthisgroupas“individuals[who]achieveintellectualdistinctionbyvirtueoftheirself-
transcendenceasJewsinordertoservethelargercauseofhumanity.” 116 Buthealigns
withVebleninstatingthatwemustappreciatethisindividualas“onewholivesator
betweenboundariescognitive,cultural,andsocial.Straddlingtheseboundaries,theJewish
intellectualsfindthemselvesdividedbetweentherespectiveclaimsoftheprovincesof
thought,normsandvaluesinwhichtheysimultaneouslyreside.” 117 Mendes-Flohrisnot
speakingexclusivelyoftheJeworoftheintellectual,butratherof“theJewishintellectual.”
AtthemomentIwouldliketobracketthequestionofwhetherthe“Jewishintellectual”is
anamalgamoftheJewandtheintellectual,orwhether“theJew”and“theintellectual”area
parsingoutofanearliersocialphenomenonofJewishintellectuals.Iwouldliketofocuson
thecontingentnatureofanysociallocationassociatedwiththesecategories,andaskwhy
theirconceptualizationwithinanin-betweenspacehasremainedindispensibletosomany
scholars.
115PaulR.Mendes-Flohr,DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1991),46.116Ibid.,15.117Ibid.,14.
155
AnotherexampleisthediscussionoftheintellectualofferedbyEdwardSaidinthe1993
ReithLectures.118Whileofferingaconceptualizationquiteoppositetoany“ideological
exclusivity,”theselecturesdemonstratethepowerfulechoofBendaandGramsci(aswell
asOrwellasRushdie)inlatterdiscussionsoftheintellectual.Said’sdepictionof“thepublic
roleoftheintellectualasoutsider[…]anddisturberofthestatusquo,”119andthetensionit
suggestsbetweentheintellectual’s“public”natureandhisorher“outsider”standing,
echoesVeblen’sdepictionoftheJewasmuchasRushdie’sdepictionoftheintellectual.It
alsointroducesaquestionthatwillconcernmeinchapter5;howisitpossibletobebotha
“public”figureandan“outsider”?Whatkindof“public”hasspacewithinitforonetobe
“outside”ofit?
Thesequestionsgetattheveryheartofthesocialprojectofintegration,bothideologically
andhistorically.TheyrelatetothepossibilityofJewsleavingtheirtraditionandhaving
somewhere(evenanin-betweenspace)togothatwasnotfullyaccepting,andthusalsonot
fully“gentile.”Andatthesametime,theyrelatetoamechanismbeingputinplacethat
wouldencouragethedepartureofJewsintothatspace.Thesequestionswillleadustothe
lateeighteenthcenturyattemptstocreate,delimitandenforceaspaceforJewsinbroader
society.WewilltakethemupinadiscussionofR.NachmanandhisreflectionsontheJews’
sociallocation.
118EdwardW.Said,RepresentationsoftheIntellectual:The1993ReithLectures(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1994).119Ibid.,x.
156
Chapter4:
LocatingRabbiNachman
LocatingRabbiNachmanintellectually,theologically,literarilyandevengeographicallyisa
multilayeredtaskofoutliningthehistorieswithinwhichheoperated.Weneedtoidentify
notonlyhisplaceinthehistoryoftheHasidicmovement,ofEuropeanJewishhistoryorof
generalEuropeanhistory,butalsothecomplexrelationsbetweenthesehistories,which
formconcentriccirclesaroundandwithinR.Nachman’slifeandwork.R.Nachman’sbirth
year(1772)isalreadyafineillustrationofthiscomplexbackgroundandits
indispensabilitytodiscussinghiswritingandthought.
Theyear1772isgenerallyregardedasacriticalone,oratleastanimportant
turningpoint,inthehistoryofHasidism.Threedecisiveeventstookplacein
thatyearwhichalteredboththeideologicalandtheorganizationalcourseon
whichthemovementhadoriginallyembarked.Thespringbroughtwithitthe
firstoutbreakofbitterhostilitiesbetweenthemitnaggedim1andthehasidim
inVilna,whencethedisputequicklyspreadtootherJewishcommunitiesin
LithuaniaandGalicia.DuringthesummermonthsBelorussiawasannexedto
Russia,andGaliciatoAustria,inthefirstpartitionofthedisintegrating
kingdomofPoland;asaresult,partsoftheJewish(andhasidic)community
inPolandwhichuntilthenhadformedasingleculturalandpoliticalentity
foundthemselvesarbitrarilyseparated.Attheendoftheyear,inDecember,
1TheorthodoxopponentsoftheHasidicmovement
157
thesupremeleaderofhasidism,R.DovBer,theMaggidofMezhirech,died
withoutleavingan“heir”totakechargeofthemovementinhisplace.2
In1772therewasaconvergenceofmajoreventssurroundingR.Nachman’slife.Inthe
historyofHasidismitmarkstheendofthe“founders’generation”andtheshiftawayfrom
centralizedleadership.InJewishhistorythisyearmarksariftwithintheEasternEuropean
Jewishcommunity,previouslyunitedinthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealthunderthe
governanceoftheCouncilofFourLands.3TheconflictbetweenHasidismanditsorthodox
opponents(theMitnagdim)wouldshapemuchofEasternEuropeanJewishhistoryinthe
followinghalfcenturyanditstracesarepresenttothisday.4InEuropeanhistorythisyear
marksthegeopoliticalexpansionofempires(theRussian,PrussianandAustro-Hungarian)
intopreviouslymonarchicalrealms.
Thedynamicandcomplexrelationsbetweenthesehistoricaleventsareforanotherproject.
IwillhereonlyoutlinethemastheyrelatetoR.Nachman.TheconflictbetweenHasidism
andtheMitnagdimwasthestrugglebetweenaninnovativepopularmovementandits
2AdaRapoport-Albert,"Hasidismafter1772:StructuralContinuityandChange,"inHasidismReappraised,ed.AdaRapoport-Albert(London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,1996),76.3TheCouncilwasofficiallydisbandedin1764butitwasn’tuntilthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealth—thepoliticalstructureunderwhichitoperated—fellapartthattheeffectsofthevacuumofleadershipspreadsofiercelytotheJewishcommunity.FormoreonEasternEuropeanJewishHistoryinthisperiodsee:GershonDavidHundert,JewsinPoland-LithuaniaintheEighteenthCenturyaGenealogyofModernity(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2004).Aswellas:SimonDubnow,HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresentDay.,trans.IsraelFriedlaender,3vols.,vol.1(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSocietyofAmerica,1916).and:YisraelBartal,TheJewsofEasternEurope,1772-1881(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2005).FormoreontheHasidicexpansioninEasternEurope,see:GlennDynner,MenofSilktheHasidicConquestofPolishJewishSociety(NewYork,N.Y.:OxfordUniversityPress,2006).4FormoreontheconflictbetweenHasidismandtheMitnagdimsee:MordecaiWilensky,HasidimU-Mitnagdim:Le-ToldotHa-PulmusShe-Benehem(Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1970).Aswellas:Dubnow,AHistoryofHasidism.
158
conservativetraditionalistcounterpart,bothforreligiousauthorityandtofillthebroader
politicalvacuumleftwheretheCouncilofFourLandshadpreviouslygoverned.The
conflict’scontainmentisdueinlargeparttothesubsequent(first)partitionofthePolish-
LithuanianCommonwealth,whichlefttheorthodoxstrongholdofVilnaintheGrandDuchy
ofLithuaniaandtheoverwhelminglyHasidicPodoliaregionintheKingdomofPoland—at
leastforthenexttwodecades.ThedeathoftheMagidmarksthedecentralizationofthe
Hasidicmovement’sleadershipnotonlyduetothelackofacentralfigurebutalsodueto
theinsertionofatenuoussetofbordersintothepreviouslyunitedCommonwealth,within
whichtheBa’alShemTovandtheMagidmovedfreelyabout.R.Nachman,bornintoa
worldjustatthemomentitbegantochangeunrecognizably,wastoliveacross-sectionof
thegreatchangesandanxietiesofhisera.
BythetimeR.Nachmanhadreachedhistwentiethyear,furtherweightyeventshad
occurred.InthehistoryofHasidism,thefirstHasidicbookshadbeenpublished.5This
markedthemovement’ssignificantideologicalturnawayfromtheskepticaland
apprehensiveattitudeboththeBa’alShemTovandtheMagidexhibitedtowardsprint
technology.Forthefounder’sgenerationthemediumforreachingthemassesofEastern
EuropeanJewrywaspersonalcharisma.ThegenerationthatfollowedtheMagid’sdeath
certainlydidnotneglectthisaspectofHasidism’sappeal.Tothecontrary,thecharismatic
featureoftheHasidicrabbi—knownasthe“zadik,”orrighteousman—wassolidifiedinto
thedoctrineofZadikism.6Yettheimplementationofprinttechnologyasamoreeffective
5I’mreferringheretothebooksofR.YakovYosefofPolnoiebeginningwith:JaakovJosephofPolnoie,SeferToldotYa`AkovYosef(1780).6MostnotablybyR.ElimelechofLeżajsk,see:ElimelechofLeżajsk,SeferNo'amElimelech(Lemberg1787).
159
meansofreachingthemassesofJewsinEasternEuroperepresentsan“update”towhatit
meantforHasidismtobea“popularmovement.”7
InJewishhistorymorebroadly,R.Nachman’sfirsttwodecadesoflifesawaseriesof
excommunicationsissuedbytheMitnagdimagainsttheHasidicmovement.Thesehadled
toaggressivepersecutionofHasidicrabbismostlyintheLithuanianGrandDuchy,resulting
inexile,beatingsandcomplaintstotheauthorities.Totheextentthatthisideological
divideranalongthenewpoliticalbordersbetweenPolandandLithuania,itsolidifiedthe
characterofthesetwocommunitiesintothearchetypalfiguresofmodernEastern
EuropeanJewishhistory—theHasidandtheLitvak.8Finally,inEuropeanhistorythe
AmericanRevolutionandtheFrenchRevolution,thoughtakingplaceontheothersideof
thecontinent(ortheworld),significantlymarkthebreakdown(nottosayexecution)of
existingsocio-politicalhierarchiesacrossEurope.Thisbroaderhistoricalcontextshould
informourunderstandingoftheHasidicmovementtoo,asitattemptedtoconsolidatethe
massesofEasternEuropeanJewsagainsttheoldguardoftheorthodoxrabbinic
establishment.9
Thenin1793and1795twofurtherpartitionsbroughtaboutthedisappearanceofthe
LithuanianGrandDuchyandthePolishkingdom.Thismarkedthefinalreplacementof
7See:Siff,"ShiftingIdeologiesofOralityandLiteracyinTheirHistoricalContext:RebbeNahhmanofBratslav’sEmbraceoftheBookasaMeansforRedemption."8Yiddishfor“aLithuanian,”thistermisusedtorefertoorthodoxJewstothisday.Weshouldmentionthethirdarchetypalfigure,theGalicianer(Yiddishfor“apersonfromGalicia”),whichreferstotheJewsofGaliciawhohadbeenannexedtotheAustro-HungarianEmpirewiththefirstpartitionofthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealth.9Officiallythisestablishment,theCouncilofFourLands,hadceasedtofunctionin1764buttheideologyof“eruditism,”thesocial-hierarchicalsuperiorityofatraditionallyeducatedelitewasfirmlyrepresentedbytheMitnagdimofVilna.
160
previousmonarchicalsystemsofrulewithmodernimperialbureaucracy.Themajorityof
JewsfrombothLithuaniaandPolandnowfoundthemselvesintheRussianEmpire,under
theprogressiveruleofEmpressCatharinetheGreat.However,hermodernizingeffortsand
enlightenmentideologydidnotaffectthemlong.In1796shediedandaperiodofpolitical
instabilityundertheruleofhersonEmperorPaulIlasteduntilhisassassinationin1801.
Duringtheseyearsseveralfurthersignificanteventstookplace.Thenorthernbranchof
HasidismconsolidatedundertheleadershipofR.SchneorZalmanofLyadiinthe
northeasternregionof(whathadbeen)Lithuania.In1796hepublishedhisbookTanya,
effectivelyformingtheChabadschoolofHasidism.10Thefollowingyeartheleaderofthe
Mitnagdim,R.EliyahutheGaonofVilna,died.FollowingtheGaon’sdeath,andfinding
themselvesallunderthesamerulershipforthefirsttimesince1772,theMitnagdim
launchedanothercampaignagainsttheHasidicmovement.Their(final)effortwasto
engagetheRussianImperialbureaucracyagainstthemovement.11Theyearsfollowingthe
finalpartitionbroughtanewkindofanxietyfortheJewishcommunitiesofEasternEurope.
WiththestabilizationoftheRussianEmpire’sborders(forthetimebeing)thequestion
wasnolongerwhichpoliticalentitytheywillberuledby,butinwhatmannerwilltheybe
governedandwhatwillbetheirlegalstandingunderthenewImperialbureaucracy.These
questionswouldonlybeansweredaftertheassassinationofEmperorPaulI.Hisson
10ShneurZalmanofLyadi,Tanya,Ve-Hu,SeferLikuteAmarim(n.a.:DefusDovBerbenYisraelveDovBerbenPesach,1796).11In1798theMitnagdimapproachedtheRussianauthoritiesandaccusedR.SchneorZalmanofsendingmoneytotheOttomanEmpireinsupportofRussia’smajorenemy.TheyknewofcoursethatthismoneywasmeanttosupportaHasidiccommunitylivinginTiberiasandnottheOttomanEmpire.R.SchneorZalmanwasabletoconvincetheauthoritiesofthisandwasreleasedaftertwomonthsinjail.In1801hewasaccusedbytheMitnagdimofbeingananarchist.HisbookTanya(sotheyargued)expressedhisoppositiontotheEmpireandputhiminthesamesubversiveanarchistcategoryastheFreemasons’Association.R.SchneorZalmanwasagainabletoconvincetheauthoritiesofhisinnocenceandwasreleased.
161
EmperorAlexanderIwouldrevivethemodernizingeffortsofhisgrandmotherCatherine
theGreatwhenheassumedpowerin1802.
R.NachmanassembledasmallgroupoffollowersinZlatopolin1800,butinthesummerof
1802,followingabitterrivalrywithanotherlocalHasidicleader—RabbiAryehLeibof
Shpola—hemovedtoBraslav.12Therehewouldspendthenexteightyears,andtherehe
woulddelivermostofhisteachingsandtalestohisdisciples.R.Nachman’smovetoBraslav
coincideswiththeappointmentofAlexanderIasEmperorofRussiaandisanimportant
backdropforR.Nachman’sintellectualactivity.AlexanderI’srulewouldbecharacterized
byanaggressiveenlightenmentagenda,andR.Nachman’swritingsaremarkedbythe
processesofmodernizationthatAlexanderIpromotedacrosstheEmpire.
BeforetheannexationofthePolish-LithuanianCommonwealthtotheRussianEmpire,Jews
werenotpermittedtoresidewithintheEmpire.FollowingthepartitionsofthePolish-
LithuanianCommonwealththeRussianEmpirehadnotonlyannexedtheLithuanianGrand
DuchyandthePolishkingdom,buthadalsoassumedcontrolofthelargestpopulationof
Jewsatthetime.TheJewsoftheformerCommonwealthwereprohibitedfromresidingin,
orevenentering,theRussianEmpirewithoutproperauthorization.Theannexed
territories,towhichJewswerelimitedfromthetimeofthefirstpartition,weretermedthe
PaleofSettlement.ThemodernizationofthePaleofSettlementwassomethingAlexanderI
gaveparticularattentionto.
12FormoreonthisconflictanditsseminalroleinR.Nachman’sthoughtsee:Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav.andPiekarz,HasidutBraslav:PerakimBe-HayeMeholelehaUvi-Khetaveha..
162
TheOrganizationoftheJews
OneofthefirstordersofbusinessforAlexanderIwastocommissionapolicycommittee
regardingtheJewsofthePaleofSettlement.
BecauseofmultiplecomplaintstoUsandtotheincomingGoverningSenate
ondifferentabusesandtroublesthathaveharmedagricultureandindustry
ofthepopulationinthoseGuberniaswhereJewslive,Weconsideredit
necessarybytheDecreetotheGoverningSenategiveninthe9thdayof
November1802,toorganizeaspecialCommitteetoexaminethisrelated
matterandtodeterminemeanstocorrectthepresentregulationofJews.13
Afterdecadesofinternalconflictandexternalpoliticalturmoil,thiswasthenon-Jewish
authorities’firstconcentratedefforttoaddresstheissueofmodernizingtheJewish
populationofEasternEurope.14InDecemberof1804theCommittee’sexaminationgave
risetotheStatuteConcerningtheOrganizationoftheJews.ThesignificanceofthisStatute
toourdiscussionofR.Nachmanpermeatesthehistorieswithinwhichheoperated.Itis
worthtakingamomenttoreviewitscontent,asthiswillbothsummarizeandframemuch
ofR.Nachman’sthoughtconcerningthereorderingofJewishsociety.15
TheIntroductiontotheStatutestatesthat“theregulationreflectedmoderationandcare
aboutthegenuinewelfareofJews,aswellasbeingbasedonbenefitstonativeresidentsof
13VitalyCharny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews,"http://www.jewishgen.org/belarus/1804_laws.htm.14Formoreontheseprocessessee:Bartal,TheJewsofEasternEurope,1772-1881.15AswewillseeinCh.5ofthisstudy,R.NachmanexplicitlyaddressestheStatuteanditseffectsinsomeofhisteachings,andimplicitlyinsomeofhistales.
163
theGubernias,wherethosepeoplehavepermissiontolive.”16Dubnowseesthisphraseas
summarizingthebalancethatAlexanderIhopedtostrikebetweenthe“welfareofJews”
andthe“benefitstonative[non-Jewish]residents,”amongwhomtheJewslivedinthePale
ofSettlement.17WeshouldnotethatthemajorityoftheseresidentswerenotRussian,but
ratherPols,Ukrainians,Lithuanians,andothers.18YetmostoftheStatutedoesnotdirectly
concerntherelationbetweenJewsandnon-Jews.Thefirstsection,titled“About
Enlightenment,”establishesJews’accesstothepubliceducationsystem,fromelementary
schoolthroughuniversity.Insecondaryandtertiaryeducation,itisstipulated,Jewish
childrenmaynotwear“Jewishdress,”butmustwear“PolishorGermandress.”This,it
continues,is“forthepurposeofuniformity.”19
“InthecaseofJewswho,despiteallthesemotivations,refusetosendtheirchildrento
commonpublicschools,”theStatutecontinueswithoutspecifyingthe“motivations,”
privateJewishschoolsmaybeestablished.However,“amongthesubjectstaughtmustbe
oneoftheselanguages:Russian,PolishorGerman.”20Theselanguagesareimportantsince
theStatuteproceedstodefineatimelineforthetransitionofallbusinessrecordsand
publicdocuments(fromYiddishorHebrew)intooneofthoselanguages.“Withoutthis,no
documentwillbeaccepted,”itconcludes.21By1808allelectedofficialsmustbeliteratein
oneoftheselanguages,andby1812evenRabbiswillnotbeappointedwithoutsuch
16Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews"(Introduction).17Dubnow,HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresentDay.,1,X.2.18Whilenationalismisananachronistictermtoemployhere,thedifferencesinlanguage,regionandreligion,aswellasinhistoricalaffiliations—someofthenon-JewishpopulationwasannexedfromtheKingdomofPoland,othersfromtheGrandDuchyofLithuaniaandstillothersfromsmallerregions—diddeterminebroadergroupaffiliations.19Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews"I.1-3.20Ibid.,I.6.21Ibid.,I.8.
164
literacy.Finally,Jewishelectedofficials,“forgeneralorderanduniformity,mustwear
RussianorPolishdress,iftheydonotliketowearGermandress.”22
WhethertheJewishofficialsliketowearGermandressisnotaquestionoffashion
preferences,noristheaimoftheStatutetoestablishafashionpolice(thoughwewillsoon
seetheenforcementofdresscodeswasassignedtothepolice).Therepeatedmentionof
orderanduniformityasthelogicunderlyingthisrequirementshouldbeunderstood—as
thetitleofsectionI,“AboutEnlightenment,”states—inthecontextofEnlightenmentideas
beingincorporatedintoadministrativepolicy.Whatisathandistheestablishmentofa
publicsphere,separatefromthespheresofreligionandprivatelife.Theremovalofprivate
orreligiousidentifiersfrompublicvisibilityisanimportantpartoftheconfigurationofthis
sphere,andofitsrepresentationofdifference.
Thenextsection,“AboutDifferentEstatesandTradesofJewsand[their]Rights,”regulates
therightsoffarmers,manufacturersandartisans,merchantsandburghers.Thegeneral
agendaisclear:theproductivizationoftheJewishpopulationofthePaleofSettlement
throughtheforcedurbanizationofnon-farmers,grantingthemaccesstoprofessional
guildsandtodedicatedgovernmentbusinessloans.Mostimportantly,theregulationof
theseestatesdoesawaywiththedoubletaxationschemetowhichJewswerepreviously
subject.Jewishbusinessesandworkersaretobetaxedequallytotheirnon-Jewish
counterparts.
Towardstheendofthis(thelongest)sectionoftheStatute,thefashionpolicemakean
22Ibid.,I.9.
165
appearance.“Jews(includingtheirwivesandchildren)temporarilytravelingoutsideofthe
Pale,havetowearGerman[style]dressnodifferentthanthatofothers.Iftheywear
traditionaldress,theyshallbesentback[tothePale]bythePolice.”23Theroleofthepolice
inenforcingthefashionmandatesofamodernizingempirehasalreadybeenmentioned.
WhatisinterestinginthisclauseistherelationitsuggestsbetweenthePaleofSettlement
andthe“proper”RussianEmpire.InthePale,Jewsmaywear“traditionaldress”inall
privateorreligioussettings.Itisonlyinmarkedlypublicsettings(publicschool,public
office)thatdresscodesaresettouniformity.ButoutsidethePale,withintheterritoryof
theRussianEmpirewhereJewsmaynotlive(norevenenterwithoutappropriate
permissionanddocumentation),uniformityismandatedeverywhere.Thatis,thecondition
underwhichJewsmayentertheRussianterritoryisthattheytravel“incognito.”Their
Judaism,theirdifference,mustnotbevisibleanywhereintheRussianpublicsphere.
SectionIII,“ObligationofJewsRegardingAbove-mentionedEstates,”beginsbymandating
that“everyJewshallhaveoracceptaknowninheritedfamilyname,”24butitsmain
objectivewasthemostdetrimentaltotheJewsofthePale.Thesectionoutlinestheterms
bywhichallJewish-heldlicensestosellalcoholofanykind,throughoutthewholeofthe
Pale,areimmediatelyrevoked,andanyoutstandingdebtforthepurchaseofalcoholfroma
Jewisvoidwithoutcompensation.Thisdecree,ineffect,pulledtheeconomiccarpetout
fromunderthefeetofnearlyallnon-urbanJewishsettlements.Roadsidetavernsand
alehouses,theproductionandsaleofalcoholtonon-Jews,werethemainsourceofincome
andrentpaymentformostsmallJewishsettlements.AsDubnowseesit,“withonestroke
23Ibid.,II.C.&D.28.24Ibid.,III.31.
166
thisclauseeliminatedfromtheeconomiclifeoftheJewsanoccupationwhich,thoughfar
frombeingdistinguished,hadyetaffordedalivelihoodtoalmostone-halfofthewhole
JewishpopulationofRussia.”25Theeffectsofthislegislationwouldbethefinalcatalystfor
mass-urbanizationofJewishcommunities.“Itsoonbecameevidentthattheexpulsion
wouldaffect60,000Jewishfamilies,orabouthalfamillionJews.Needlesstosay,withinthe
twoorthreeyearsofrespitewhichremainedbeforethecatastrophe,thishugemasscould
notpossiblygainaccesstonewfieldsoflaborandestablishitselfinnewdomiciles.”26Asis
evidentthusfarfromtheStatute,theproductivizationandmodernizationoftheJewsofthe
Palewasimaginedlargelyasatop-downprocess,tobeenforcedratheraggressivelybythe
Imperialadministration.
AtthelevelofEuropeanhistory,theStatuteispartofalargerprocessofmodernization
undertakenbytheRussianEmpire.Thisprocessincludedregulatingpubliceducationand
professional(guild)affiliations,overhaulingthestructureofImperialadministrationand
incorporatingenlightenmentideasadoptedfromWesternEuropeanstates.27Another
elementofthisbroaderprojectisformulatedinsectionIV“OntheCivilRightsofJews.”It
statesquiteplainlythatJews“arefreeandliveundertheprecisepatronageoflawsgiven
onthelevelwithallotherRussiansubjects.”28Equalityofallsubjectsbeforeaunifiedcode
oflawthatappliestoallsubjectsequallywasapillarofemancipationallacrossEurope.
Thismarksatransitionawayfromwhatwemightcall“demographicrule,”whereby
25Dubnow,HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresentDay.,1,343.26Ibid.,346.27AnotablebureaucratinvolvedindraftingtheStatutewasMichaelSperansky,whoseownbiographytracksmuchoftheupsanddownsofthisEmpire-wideprocess.See:MarcRaeff,MichaelSperansky:StatesmanofImperialRussia,1772-1839(Hague:M.Nijhoff,1957).28Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews"IV.42.
167
differentdemographicgroupswithinthesamegeographicregionaresubjecttodifferent
legalsystems,29andtowardsasystemof“geographicrule,”wherebyallsubjectswithina
geographicallydeterminedareaweresubjecttothesamesystemoflaws.Theformerwas
therealityfortheCounciloftheFourLandsuntilthedisintegrationofthePolish-
LithuanianCommonwealth.Jewsweresubjecttothejudicialsystemestablishedand
maintainedbytheCouncil,andinaccordancewithJewishlaw,whiletheirnon-Jewish
neighborsweresubjecttoentirelydifferentjudicialsystems.Onlyincasesofconflict
betweenaJewandanon-Jewwouldthecasearriveatanon-Jewishcourt.30The
emancipation’slegalsystemcoveredallsubjectswithinageographicallydeterminedarea,
andpurportedtograntmembersofalldemographicgroupsequalaccesstopubliclegal
recourse,regardlessoftheirpersonalaffiliations.
Needlesstosay,emancipationideologyproposedtoremoveagreatdealofpowerfromthe
handsoftraditionalleadersoftheJewishcommunity.Thisisreferencedintheverytitleof
theStatuteConcerningtheOrganizationofJews,whichinfactattemptedtore-organizethe
Jewishcommunitiessothatinpublicmatterssuchastaxation,legalrecourse,tradeand
guilds,aswellasgeneralproductivity,theywouldbeonparwithallotherinhabitantsof
thePale.Atthesametime,itallowedforthecontinuedorganizationofreligiouslifein
29Thesimilaritiesofthissystemtothecolonialadministrativesystemof“indirectrule”isworthmentioninghere,thoughisobviouslybeyondourpresentscope.Formoreon”legalpluralism”and“indirectrule”see:LaurenA.Benton,LawandColonialCulturesLegalRegimesinWorldHistory,1400-1900(Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002);LaurenA.BentonandRichardJeffreyRoss,eds.,LegalPluralismandEmpires,1500-1850(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2013).And:MahmoodMamdani,"DefineandRuleNativeasPoliticalIdentity,"(2012).30Thiswasthecaseinalltypesoflaw,evencapitaloffences.TherearerareinstancesofdocumentedapplicationofcapitalpunishmentbytheCouncilincasesofJewsmurderingotherJews.FormoreontheCouncil’sfunctionsinJewishlife,see:Dubnow,HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresentDay.,1.OntheutilizationofitsmechanismsbytheMitnagdim,intheirconflictagainstHasidim,see:AHistoryofHasidism.
168
exclusivelynon-publicterms.31ThussectionV,“ThePositionofRabbis,”statesthat“the
rabbinateisjustanhonorablepost.”32Consequently,“itisforbidden[forrabbis]toinflict
anyotherpunishment,exceptrevelationandpronunciationsinsidethesynagogues;Rabbis
andotherspiritualleaderswhodaregoagainstthisruleandinflictpublicpunishment,of
whateverkind[suchas]:finebytheprohibitionsofPaskha[…]andkoshermeat,andeven
bycondemnationanddenunciationwillbepunished.”33Equalaccesstothelawinvolved
denyingrabbistheirtraditionalroleasadjudicators,aswellastheirrightstorequisitions
andcompensationfromthecommunity.
TheprocessofmodernizingtheJewofthePalewouldextendwellbeyondR.Nachman’s
lifetime,butitsformalbeginningsareinthefirstyearsofAlexanderI,duringwhichtimeR.
NachmanwasstillestablishinghimselfastheleaderofhisownHasidiccourt.34R.
Nachman’sfirstyearinBraslavwasmarkedbyextensivepoliticaleffortsoftheJewish
community(HasidimandMitnagdimalike)toassuagetheseverityofwhattheysuspected
wouldturnouttobeadetrimentaldecreeagainsttheJewishpopulationofthePaleof
Settlement.AtthelevelofJewishhistory,thisjointeffortbeganaperiodofcooperation
betweenHasidimandtheirorthodoxopponents.In1804,whentheStatutewasenacted,it
includedaclausethateffectivelybroughtanendtotheconflictbetweenthesegroups:“Ifin
anyplacetherearisesaseparationofsectsandasplitoccursinwhichonegroupdoesnot
wanttobeinasynagoguewiththeothergroup,thenitispossible[for]oneofthemtobuild
31Whattheoppositeof“public”wasinthiscontextisaquestionwewillseeR.Nachmantakeupinchapter5.32Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews"V.52.33Ibid.,V.51.34See:Dubnow,HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresentDay.,1.InparticularCh.X.
169
itsownsynagogueandtoselectitsrabbis.”35Fromthatpointontherecouldbemorethan
onesynagoguepertownandthustherewasnolongerasinglepositionofrabbinic
authoritytoviefor.HasidimandMitnagdimwerefreetoestablishtheirownsynagogues.36
InthehistoryoftheHasidicmovement,thisallowedtheundisturbedestablishmentofnew
HasidiccommunitiesacrossthePaleofSettlement,andtheemergenceofthefirstHasidic
leadersofwhatwouldbecomepatrilinealdynasticcourts.37InbroaderEuropeanJewish
history,theendofhostilitiesbetweenthesetwogroupssetthestageforthenextconflict,
whichR.Nachmanwouldseeonlytheearlieststagesof,betweentheEasternEuropean
JewishEnlightenmentthinkers(theMaskilim)andthetraditionalistcommunitiesof
HasidismandMitnagdim.38
InR.Nachman’spersonalbiography,1804isthebeginningofhisextremelyproductive
years.Almostallofwhathetaughtandpublishedwasdonebetween1804andhisdeathin
1810.Allthethemeswehavementionedthusfar—thedecentralizationoftheHasidic
movementandtheideologyofZadikism,theconflictwiththeMitnagdim,hisownconflict
withotherHasidicrabbis,thearrivalofJewishEnlightenmentideasfromWesternEurope,
the1804Statute—allfigureinhisteachingsandtales.Hislifewasamicrocosmofthese
historicalforcesandhisoeuvrewasnodifferent.
35Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews"V.53.36Formoreontheimplicationsofthislegislationfortheconflictsee:Wilensky,HasidimU-Mitnagdim:Le-ToldotHa-PulmusShe-Benehem.37Formoreonthevarious“phases”ofHasidism,see:Dubnow,AHistoryofHasidism.38Theconflicteruptedinfullforceonlyin1815,butR.NachmanwasclosetotheMaskiliminhisregionandhisfriendshipwiththemwasthesourceofconsiderablecriticism,evenfromhisowndisciplines.Formoreonthisconflict,see:Refa'elMahler,HasidismandtheJewishEnlightenment:TheirConfrontationinGaliciaandPoilandinthe1stHalfofthe19thCentury(Philadelphiau.a.:JewishPubl.Soc.ofAmerica,1985).FortheeffectsofthisconflictonthehistoriographyofHasidism,see:IsraelBartal,"TheImprintofHaskalahLiteratureontheHistoriographyofHasidism,"inHasidismReappraised,ed.AdaRapoport-Albert(London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,1996).FormoreonR.Nachman’srelationswiththeMaskilim,see:HaimLiberman,"R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim,"YIVOBleterXXIX(1947).
170
R.Nachman’screativeyearscoincidewiththereorganizationofEasternEuropeanJewish
societythatistheculminationofallthepolitical,socialandgeographicuncertainty
accumulatedoverseveraldecadesintheregion.Theylastuntilamomentbeforethis
volatilitydisappearsintothepost-NapoleonicsolidificationofRussianbordersand
reformationpolicies.Withinsuchadynamicperiod,thequestionof“locating”R.Nachman
historically,socially,evengeographically,isnotasimpleone.Thestandarddichotomy
betweentraditionandmodernitydoesnotencompassthemultipletraditionsandpossible
modernitiesthat,inhismoment,R.Nachmanattemptedtothinkthroughandarticulate.
WhattheseconcentrichistoriesshouldimplyforastudyofR.Nachmanisthatanysuch
locationwillnotbeastaticone.ItistheunabatedandunavoidabledynamismofR.
Nachman’spositionthatweshouldkeepinmindasweturntoreadhiswork.
Thisdynamismisalsothewayhehimselfrepresentedhisroleaszadiktohisfollowers;
movingbetweenhistorical,social,eventheologicalforces,negotiatingbetweenfaithand
heresy,enlightenmentandtradition,thiswasthe“position”ofthezadik.Wewillreadthis
representationshortlyin“Teaching64:GoinUntoPharaoh”ofR.Nachman’scollected
teachingsLikkuteiMoharan.39Leadingintoourdiscussionofthisteaching,however,we
willpausetoconsideranothersocialpositionthatemergedsimultaneouslyandwith
similardynamismtothatofR.Nachman’s“zadik.”Occupyingasimilardynamicposition
vis-à-visthebroadersociety,consideringtheconnectionsof“theIntellectual”and“the
Zadik”willhelpintroducethetermsinwhichIamproposingtoreadR.Nachman’swritings,
furtherclarifytheparticularcontextofhiscontributiontothereorganizationofEastern
EuropeanJewryandprepareustomakesenseofTeaching64.39Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1;LikkuteiMoharan,vol.2(Mohilev1811).
171
WasRabbiNachmanaJewishIntellectual?
TherearetwoquestionsthatstandoutasmostcommonlyposedinthestudyofR.
Nachman’sthoughtandwriting.Thefirst:didR.NachmanthinkhewastheMessiah?(A
questionwhichmay,dependingontheaudience,amounttoasking,“wasR.Nachmanthe
Messiah?”)Theanswer(regardlessoftheaudience)hasbeenaresounding“yes.”The
second:shouldweincludeR.Nachman’swritinginthecategoryofModernHebrew
Literature?Whilethismayseemanoddquestiontoaskaboutthe(perhaps,self-perceived)
Messiah,thistoohasmostlybeenansweredintheaffirmative.40Neitherofthesequestions
willconcernushere.Thefirstquestionistangentialtoourattempttofocusonthe
intricaciesofR.Nachman’ssocialthoughtandhisimaginativewriting,41andevenmoreso
onceweconsiderR.Nachman’sownunderstandingofwhatthemessianicmomentwould
looklikeinsocialterms.
Asforthesecondquestion,the“yes”neverendsupproducingaclearaffirmationofR.
Nachman’sHebrewliterarymodernity.EagerstatementsofinclusionsuchasArnold
Band’sarenothardtofind:“WhilethesecollectionsofHasidictaleshavenotgenerally
40ThemostsignificantreadersofBraslavliteratureallagreeonthispoint.See:Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales.Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.Elstein,Pa`AmeBatMelekh:HikreTokhenVe-TsurahBe-SipuroHa-RishonShelR.NahmanMi-Braslav.Green,TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav.ZviMark,MegilatSetarim:He-HazonHa-MeshihiHa-SodiShelR.NahmanMi-Braslav(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversity,2006).Piekarz,HasidutBraslav:PerakimBe-HayeMeholelehaUvi-Khetaveha.41ThepossibilitythatR.Nachman’stalesareinfactnotfictional,butratherallegoricalreferencestoverypresentmetaphysicalrealities,hasbeenraisedbymanyofthereadersIhavealreadyreferenced.Notbeingametaphysician,myownaccesstothis(somewhatoxymoronic)“metaphysicalreality”isratherlimited.IsuspectthesameistrueofthereadersIhavementionedaswell.Formoreonthispointsee:Lewis,"RevealingandConcealingasLiteraryDevicesintheTalesofRabbiNachman,or,theCaseoftheMissingEnding."
172
beenincludedinhistoriesofModernHebrewLiterature,theargumentsDovSadanand
othershaveproposedfortheirinclusionarequiteconvincing.”42Themoreobviousissues
withfittingR.Nachmanintothecategoriesof“Hebrew”and“literature”isthathe
publishedbothtalesandteachings,anditisunclearwhethertheywereinfactdeliveredin
HebreworYiddish.EventuallystatementssuchasBand’sarequalified,andR.Nachman
becomesa“forerunner”43toHebrewliterarymodernity,orsimply(andunproblematically)
contemporaneouswithit.“Ifweusetheterm[‘modern’]generically,referringtoaperiod
oftime–thelasttwocenturies,forinstance–[thenthetalesofR.Nachman]areofthe
'modern'period.If'modernity,'however,ismeasuredbythesecular,inquisitive,and
historicspirit,”44continuesBand,thenthetalesofR.Nachmanarenot.
TheissueofR.Nachman’srelationtothecategoryof“modernity”isnotmyconcernhere.It
merelyillustratesthedifficultythatexistsinplacinghisthoughtandwritingwithinreadily
availablecategories,betheyModernorMessianic.Therewasanothersocialcategorythat
wasemergingtowardstheendoftheeighteenthcentury,andwhichmightbetterserveour
understandingofR.Nachman’stalesandteachings.ThepositionIhaveinmindisthatof
theIntellectual.“Themenoflettersoftheeighteenthcentury[…]beingoutoftouchwith
practicalpoliticsindulgedinabstractpoliticaltheoriesandvaguegeneralizations,”writes
GeorgeHuszarinthefirstpagesofTheIntellectuals.45HeisspeakingoftheroleFrench
intellectualsplayedintheRevolution,butextendsthisobservationtoEuropeanmenof
lettersinthelateeighteenthcenturymoregenerally.
42Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales,30.43See:Schwartz,"RabbiNachmanofBratslav:ForerunnerofModernJewishLiterature."44Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales,29.45GeorgeB.deHuszar,ed.TheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait(Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960),8.
173
Thepoliticizationofletters(andmenofletters)inthatperiodisnotanovelargument.
ContemporariesofR.NachmansuchasMadamdeStaëlinherPolitics,Literature,and
NationalCharacter46hadalreadyarticulatedthisprocessand,fromAlexisdeTocquevilleto
RaymondWilliams,theincreasedinvolvementofmenoflettersinpoliticsandtheeffectsof
thistrendhavebeenwelldocumented.47Forreasonsbeyondourpresentscope,questions
andpossibilitiesoftherelationbetweenpoliticsandintellectualactivityreceivednew
articulationinlateeighteenthcenturyEuropeandavarietyofwriters,poetsand
philosophershadtakenuppoliticsandgovernment,whetherastopicorasoccupation.
ThesemencametocomprisetheirownsocialgroupknownasIntellectuals.48Thoughthey
hadlittlepracticalpoliticalexperience,asHuszarnotes,“theyhadgreatconfidencein[their
ideas]andthoughtthatundertheruleofreasonasuddenandradicaltransformationofa
complexsocietywaspossible.”49Suchintellectualstookonkeyrolesintherevolutionsand
reformationsoftheperiod,andtherevolutionsandreformationsofJewishsocietywereno
different.So,wasR.NachmanaJewishintellectual?
HowcouldaHasidiczadikbeconsideredaJewishintellectual?Ourfirstreactionwould
probablybetoseethisasacontradictioninterms,fortworeasons.First,wetendtothink46GermainedeStael,Politics,Literature,andNationalCharacter,trans.MorroeBerger(NewBrunswick,U.S.A.;London,U.K.:TransactionPublishers,2000).47TocquevillediscussestheFrenchcontextin:AlexisdeTocqueville,"TheOldRegimeandtheFrenchRevolution,"(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1955).RaymondWilliamsdiscussestheBritishcontextin:RaymondWilliams,CultureandSociety,1780-1950(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1958).Foradiscussionoftheextenttowhichpoliticsandlettersblendedinthisprocess,see:SophiaRosenfeld,"WritingtheHistoryofCensorshipintheAgeofEnlightenment,"inPostmodernismandtheEnlightenment:NewPerspectivesinEighteenth-CenturyFrenchIntellectualHistory,ed.DanielGordon(NewYork:Routledge,2001).Huszar’seditedvolumeoffersacomprehensiveviewofthepoliticalroleof18thandearly19thcenturyintellectualsintheU.S.andRussiaaswell.See:Huszar,TheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait.48See:TheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait,3.49Ibid.,8.
174
oftheintellectualasanenlightened,rational,perhapsevensecularfigure.Thus,theBerlin
rabbiMosesMendelssohnmightbeconsideredanearlyJewishIntellectual,whilehis
contemporaryPolishrabbiYisra’elBaalShemTovwouldnot.This“secular”hypothesisis
certainlynottrueofthenon-JewishintellectualsinR.Nachman’slifetime,norisit
unproblematicallytrueofMendelssohnforthatmatter.50Infact,theearliestnon-Hasidic
documentationofHasidismwasdonebyMaskilim.Throughharshcriticismandbiting
satiretheseearlyaccountssetupanoppositionbetweenthezadikasacorruptpopulist
leaderexploitingtheJewishmassesandtheMaskilasamodernintellectualoperating
“above”themasses.Thisoppositionwouldcharacterizehistoricalworkonbothgroupsfor
thenexttwocenturies.51Second,researchonthissocialgrouphastendedtofocusonthe
intellectuals’liminalpositionvis-à-visthesocietyinwhichtheyoperate.Wehaveseenthis
inthepreviouschapterwithVeblenandBorges,aswellasaccountsoftheintellectualfrom
JulianBendaandAntonioGramscitoPaulMendes-FlohrandEdwardSaid.52Hencethe
invocationof“exile,”“inter-space,”and“in-between-ness”inthesemorerecent
representationsoftheintellectual.InR.Nachman’sday,however,neitherJewsnor
intellectualscouldbesoobviously“located.”
Thereissomethingmoretonote,however,abouttheinflectioninthecategoryof“Jewish50OnreligiousstrandsinFrenchintellectualthoughtofthetime,see:AlbertSalomon,"TheMessianicBohemians,"inTheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait,ed.GeorgeB.deHuszar(Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960).,incontemporaryRussianintellectualthought,see:HughSeton-Watson,"TheRussianIntellectuals,"ibid.,inthelaterRussianintellectualcontext,see:SydneyHook,"CommunismandtheIntellectual,"ibid.OnMendelssohn,see:AllanArkush,MosesMendelssohnandtheEnlightenment(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYork,1994).51InfactmuchoftheMaskilliteratureagainsttheHasidicmovementsatirizesthezadiktothepointofpresentinghimastheveryantithesisofthe“modernintellectual”Maskil.FormoreonthebiasofearlydocumentationsofHasidismsee:Bartal,"TheImprintofHaskalahLiteratureontheHistoriographyofHasidism."FormoreonMaskilicsatireagainstHasidismsee:JonatanMeir,ImaginedHasidism:TheAnti-HasidicWritingsofJosephPerl(Yerushalayim:MosadBialik,2013).52Seetheconclusionofchapter1foradiscussionoftheserepresentationsoftheintellectual.
175
Intellectual.”Thein-betweensociallocationsocentraltounderstandingsofboththeJew
andtheIntellectual,wasnotreadilyavailabletoJews(orintellectuals)inR.Nachman's
lifetime.CertainlyMedievalandearly-ModernsocialconditionsinEuropecontainedno
suchspace.Asagroup,Jewswereforthemostparteitherfullyidentifiableandsocially
contained(asintheghettosofItaly),ortheywereabsent(asinEngland).Iftherewasto
existadifferencebetweenJewsandthenon-Jewishsurroundingsociety,itwouldbevisible.
Ifsuchdifferencewasnotdesirable,itwasexpelled.53Inthelate-eighteenthandearly-
nineteenthcentury,withthespreadofenlightenmentideologythatpromotedthe
separationofChurchandState,alongwithpoliticalprogramsofemancipationthatsought
equalaccessforallcitizenstoaunifiedlegalcode,thesocialrealitybegantochange.Aswe
haveseen,theinclusionofallJewsinthePaleofSettlementunderaunifiedlegalcodemay
haveleftthemattheouterlimitsofsociety—achangeofattireisallthatwasneeded—
nonethelesstheywereattheouterlimitsofinclusion.The1804Statute’sefforttooutline
thebordersofthisspace—intermsrangingfromgeographytocouture—wasanearly
articulationofstructuresofinclusion,vis-à-viswhichtheJews’andtheintellectuals’
positionalikewouldcometobedefinedandrepresentedbylaterthinkers.
CommentingonthehistoriographyoftheFrenchemancipationduringR.Nachman’s
lifetime,RonaldSchechterstates,“despitesometimesbitterpoliticaldifferences,the
historyoftheJewsfromtheEnlightenmentthroughtherevolutionary-Napoleonicperiod
hasbeenwrittenwithaviewtoafuturethattheseforcesarepresumedtohavebrought
53InterestingexceptionstothisaretheMarranosofSpainandPortugal.
176
intobeing.”54TheretrospectiveforeshadowingSchechtertakesissuewithseeseventssuch
astheDreyfusAffairandWWIIanti-Semitismasnaturaloutcomesofemancipation
ideology.Schechtercriticizessuchretroactiveframingofemancipationideologyasan
“attemptateradicatingtheJews.”55AsDubnowhasdocumented,manyofR.Nachman's
contemporariescertainlyunderstoodthesechangeswouldcauseharmtotheJewish
population.Nevertheless,afterNapoleonconvenedtheParisSanhedrinin1806theJewish
communityinEasternEuropewassplitastowhichempirehadthebetterattitudetowards
Jews,thenegotiatedemancipationofNapoleon’sRepublicanFranceortheforced
modernizationofRussia’s“enlighteneddespot”AlexanderI.Thedifferenceofopinionled
tosomeoftheworstconflictswithintheHasidicmovementatthetime.56
ThequestionIwanttofocusonisnotwhetherforcedemancipationornegotiated
emancipation(oreventhedenialofemancipation)representsanattempttoeradicatethe
Jews.TotheextentthatSchechterisrightinpointingoutthatthecommon
historiographicalanswerseemstobe"both,"wewoulddowelltoaccepthiscriticismof
implicithistoricalteleology.Whateverfuturehistoricaldevelopmentsmayturnouttobe,
whatiscommontobothNapoleonandtheTsarisanefforttoreorganizethesocial
mechanismsthatdeterminedinclusionandexclusion.AndwhatiscommontotheJewsof
Europeatthetimeistheattempttofigureouttheirplacewithinthisreshufflingofthe
54RonaldSchechter,ObstinateHebrews:RepresentationsofJewsinFrance,1715-1815(Berkeley:Univ.ofCaliforniaPress,2003),3.Foradiscussionofforeshadowingandthepossibilityof“backshadowing”inJewishliteraryhistoriographysee:MichaelBernstein,ForegoneConclusions:AgainstApocalypticHistory(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994).55Schechter,ObstinateHebrews:RepresentationsofJewsinFrance,1715-1815,3.56Forafictionaldepictionofthismoment,see:MartinBuber,GogandMagog:ANovel,trans.LudwigLewisohn(Syracuse,NY:SyracuseUniversityPress,1999).Foraccountsofthisdifferenceofopinion,see:PaulR.Mendes-FlohrandJehudaReinharz,JewintheModernWorld:DocumentaryHistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995),137-38.
177
socialspace.
Aswehaveseeninthepreviouschapter,whenVeblenspeaksof"modernEurope"heuses
thistermasasomewhatuncriticalmixofgeographical,historical,ideologicalandeven
religiousdesignations.Ultimately,hearrivesatanevaluationofhispresentsituationof
JewsinEuropewiththea-historicalanda-contextualconclusionthattheygotthereby
leavingtheirtraditionbehindandfindingthebroadersocietynotentirelyaccessible.Stuck
betweentraditionandmodernity,thisnarrativeoftransitionthatheascribestheJews
becomestheverydefinitionoftheirsociallocation.WhatwefindinVeblenisanexampleof
historiographicalteleologythatcomplimentsSchechter’scriticism.Thatistosay,whilethe
historiansSchechtercriticizeswillretrospectivelyseethehistoryofemancipationasan
attemptateradicatingtheJews,Veblenwouldretrospectivelyseethesamehistoryas
bringingintobeingthepreeminenceofJewsinmodernEurope.57Yetwhenweapply
Veblen’shistoricalnarrativetoR.Nachman’slifetimewefindlittleofthein-between-ness
thatVeblenidentifies.Neitherpreeminencenoreradicationexistsasapredetermined
courseforR.Nachman,outsideofalaterteleologicalaccountofhismoment.
PaulMendes-Flohr,inhisbookDividedPassions,58arguesthathumanisticself-
transcendenceofone’sownJudaismisatypicalrepresentationoftheJewishIntellectual.
YetR.NachmanwasfirmlyrootedintheHassidicmovement.Hisattemptstomakesense
(and,later,stories)ofthechangingworldaroundhimdidnotleadhimtotranscendthe
traditionaltenetsuponwhichJewishsocietyinEasternEuropewaspredicated.Nomore57Veblen,"TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope."58Mendes-Flohr,DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity.
178
thanwasthebroadereffortoftheHassidicmovement,atanyrate.If,followingVeblenand
Mendes-Flohr,wedefinetheJewishintellectualasanin-betweenfigure,straddling
boundarieswithdividedandsimultaneousresidence,wemightnote(asBanddoes59)that
R.Nachmanwashardlysuchafigure.Norcouldhebe.Thein-betweenspace,inwhichthe
Jewishintellectualmayexist,wasonlyjustbeingcarvedoutinR.Nachman’slifetime;both
geographically(startingin1772)inthePaleofSettlement,andideologically(startingin
1804)intheStatuteontheOrganizationoftheJews.
TheJewishIntellectualis“atangiblehistoricalandsocialconfigurationinWestern
society,”60inspiteofitselusivenessandmethodologicalproblematic,Mendes-Flohrclaims.
R.Nachman’stalesandteachingsareawindowontoamoment,fromwhichthis
configurationcanbeseenastakingshape,butisnotyetas“tangible”asMendes-Flohrsees
it.Bysuchaview,tocallR.Nachmana“Jewishintellectual”wouldbeanachronistic.YetR.
Nachmancertainlyraisesquestionsregardingthepossibilityofsucha“configuration.”
Understandingthespacethatwasopening(orclosing)forJewswithinhisownsocietywas
forR.Nachmanaprimarypreoccupation.Inthatsense,wemightposehimasaprecursor
tojustsuchJewishintellectualsasMendes-Flohrhimself.InhistalesandteachingsR.
Nachmantracesandastutelycriticizestheprocessbywhichthelocationsodefiningofthe
JewandtheIntellectualwasformedandconceived.Thisprocesswasnotcompletedduring
R.Nachman'slifetime,atleastnotinEasternEurope.Butsomeofitsmostsignificant
momentsdidtakeplacethen.
59Band,NahmanofBratslav,theTales,29.InwhatfollowsIwilldemonstratethat(leaving“secular”aside)“inquisitive”and“historicspirit”areadjectivesthatwellapplytoR.Nachman’swriting.60Mendes-Flohr,DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity,25.
179
HowthenshouldwethinkofR.Nachman’spositionin1804thatisnotin-between,but
representsanopeningontosuchalocation?SpeakingofR.Nachman—amongthemost
exemplaryofHasidicrabbis—JosephWeissanswers:"theyarefiguresattheverylimit,at
thelimitofJudaism,whomthefascinationofthelimitandwhatliesbeyondithas
overtaken."61R.Nachmanwasdrawntothelimit,butwoulditscrossinglandhiminsome
in-betweenspace,orratheronthe"otherside"entirely?HiscontemporaryHeinrichHeine
convertedtoChristianityaspartofhisowncrossingofthelimit.Borgesmayperceive
Heine'spositionasthatofJewishmarginality—andperhapsinWesternEuropeofthetime
thiswouldnotbeasanachronisticasuggestionasitwouldbeforHasidicrabbisinthePale
ofSettlement—butR.Nachmancertainlywouldnothaveperceiveditso.Hisgravitation
towardsthelimit,whichWeissterms"thegravitationalpullofthelimit,"62isnotyetan
accountofanythingthatliesjustbeyondthelimit.
Preciselywhatisbeingasked,then,inposingthequestionofapossiblein-betweenspace?
Thisquestionrunsalongthelinesoftheconcentriccircles,withinwhichwearediscussing
R.Nachman’slife.OnthelevelofEuropeanhistoryitisageo-politicalquestion.Whatlies
beyondthebordersoftheRussianEmpire?ThePaleofSettlementwasageographicregion
thatseparatedwhatwasproperlyRussiafromotherempirestothewest.Thoughsubjectto
Imperialbureaucracy,astheStatutehasshown,thePalewasdiscontinuouswithRussiain
severalways.Wehavealreadyseenthedifferenceintheregulationofpublicspace,
wherebyJewswerefreetowear“their”dressoutsideofofficialsettingsinthePale,but61Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,99.62Ibid.,Ch.7.
180
wereobligatedtoremaininGermandressatalltimeswhilewithinRussia.ThePalewas
alsoapoliticalregionwherecitizensweresubjecttoaunifiedcodeoflaws,whichensured
theirequalitywhilemaintainingtheirdesignationsasnon-Russiancitizens.ThePalewas
establishedasageo-politicalin-betweenspaceintermsofEuropeansocialhistory.
IntermsofEuropeanJewishhistorythePalewasamomentbetweentherelativeautonomy
oftheprevioustwocenturiesandanefforttoforceJewishemancipationand
modernization.ThequestionwhereoneendsupwhenleavingtheEmpireismirroredin
thequestionofwhereoneendsupwhenleavingthetraditionalJewishworld.TheMaskilim
werenotthefirsttoposethisquestiontotheEasternEuropeanJewishcommunity.
Hasidismhaddonethathalfacenturyearlier.FortheMitnagdim,Hasidismwasentirely
outsidethefoldofthetraditionalcommunity.Therewasnoin-between.Butintheearly
nineteenthcentury,withthearrivalofthefirstJewishEnlightenmentfiguresonthe
EasternEuropeanscene,the“topographical”questionofideologicalborderswasreopened.
WasitnowpossibletostepoutofthetraditionalsettingandendupinasortofPaleof
Settlement,whereonemightstillbesubjecttoJudaism,butasanon-traditionalmember?
Orwouldone,astheMitnagdimargueddecadesearlier,endupoutsidethefoldentirely,
excommunicated?OnthelevelofHasidichistorythiswaspreciselythequestiontheyhad
facedintheyearsofcontentionwiththeMitnagdim.Andtherewasthetheologicalquestion
too:whatisthelimitbetweenfaithandheresy?Howfarintotherealmofrationalism(the
hallmarkoftheEnlightenment,asfarasHasidismwasconcerned)couldoneventure
beforeendingupinheresy?AsatraditionalJewcaughtinthegravitationalpullofthelimit,
R.Nachmanwasalsodrawntothequestion:wheredoesoneendupwhenonecrossesthe
181
limit?
TheriseofJewishEnlightenmentinEasternEuropetowardstheendofR.Nachman's
lifetimesuggestedsucha“straddlingofboundaries”(toborrowMendes-Flohr’s
expression)wasbecomingpossible.Moreover,Braslavideology"seesaspecialroleinthe
zadikenteringamongtheinvestigators63andthebooksofinvestigation(thatis,booksof
heresy)[...]Themostexplicitexpression[ofthis]isfoundinteaching64."64Thequestionof
whetherthese"investigators"straddledthelimitorsimplyexitedJudaismisaquestionR.
NachmanstruggleswithinTeaching64.Allthemoresodoweneedtoconsiderthesocial
implicationsofanideologythatascribesthezadiktheroleoffraternizingwiththe
Maskilim.ItisnotenoughtonotetheBraslavcritiqueofrationalismasaformofheresy,
whenthiscritiqueispartofanideologythatcallsforengagingwiththissameheresy.Inhis
finalyears,livinginthehomeofaJewishEnlightenmentscholarinUman,R.Nachmanhad
"thesensationoflivingonthelimit—averycharacteristicsensationtoR.Nachmanallhis
life.R.NathantellsthatwhilelivinginthehomeofR.Nachman-Natan:65'Hesaid:herewe
arenowatthelimitandedgeofIsraelwherethelimitofIsraelends,foreverythinghasa
limitandanend.'"66
Thequestionofhowtolocatehimselfvis-à-visthe"investigators,"thegravitationalpullof
thelimitvis-à-visthosethathadalreadycrossedit,was,forR.Nachman,partandparcelof
63“Investigators”–inHebrew:mechakrim–isthetermR.NachmanusesforscholarsoftheJewishEnlightenment.64Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,64-65.65R.Nachman-NatanwastheJewishEnlightenmentscholarinUman,inwhosehomeR.Nachmanlivedinhisfinalmonthsoflife.See:Liberman,"R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim."66Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,62.
182
thelargerquestionofwhatliesbeyondthelimit.YetwhileR.Nachmanwasdrawntothe
limitandtheprospectsofitscrossing,hischallengewastoidentifyapointofaccessthat
wouldnotgothroughrationalismandthusheresy(asseemedtohimtobethecasewith
theJewishEnlightenmentscholars).Teaching64considersthevariouskindsof“limits”
thatencircleJewishsociety—theological,social,andepistemological—alongwiththe
possibilitiesandimplicationsoftheirrespectivetransgression.Withinhismulti-layered
considerationofthelimitsofJewishsociety,R.Nachmanalsoattemptstounderstandthe
dynamicsofhisownposition.
R.Nachman’spositionisnotthatofa“Jewishintellectual”—notinMendes-Flohr’ssense(in
whichtheJewishEnlightenmentscholarswere),norinthesenseBorgesintendswhenhe
represents“theJudaic”asinforminghisownprojectofanintellectualauthor.Whatthe
juxtapositionofR.NachmanandBorgeshighlightsisasimilarityintermsoftheiroperation
ofwritingattheedge.Recognizingit,contemplatingitspossibilitiesandinscribingtheir
writingattheedge,asanopeningoftheedgeintoanin-betweenspace,whichwillbetheir
pointofdepartureaswriters.R.Nachman’sintroductionofa"vacantspace"betweenthe
limitanditsbeyondiswhatmakesTeaching64sosignificantintermsofunderstandinghis
thoughtonthisoperation.
TheTopographyoftheQuestion
R.NachmanidentifiestwoTalmudiccharactersthatrepresentforhimanexemplary
positionatthelimitsofJudaism.Inhisteachingsheexpressesaparticularfascinationwith
183
them.ThefirstisRabbaBarBarHanna,theTalmudicfabulatorandwandererinmythical
spaces.TheeighteenteachingsthatbeginR.Nachman’scollectioninLikkuteiMoharan
centeraroundinterpretationsofRabbaBarBarHannah’svariousaccountsofhisfabulous
voyages.“EveryAbbaisanassandeveryBarBarHannahisafool”67iswhattheother
Talmudicrabbishavetosayaboutthesetales.Nonetheless,whatevertheotherrabbis
thoughtofhim,BarBarHannahconsistentlyexploresthelimitofhisownworldandR.
Nachmandevotesquiteabitofenergytoreadingandinterpretingtheaccountsofthis
exploration.
ThesecondcharacterisElishabenAbuya,thefamousrabbi-turned-heretic,referredto
simplyas“Other”bytherabbisoftheTalmud.R.Nachmanseesbothcharactersascaught,
likehe,inwhatWeisscallsthegravitationalpullofthelimit;betweentheknownworldand
themythical,betweenrabbinicknowledgeandgentileculture.Mostimportantly,he
representsbothasposingquestionssimilartohis,aboutthenatureofthelimitandits
crossing.“Whatwasitabout‘Other’?[R.NachmanrecallstheTalmudicquestion,andits
answer:]Greeksongneverquithismouth,andwhenhewouldrisefromhisstudy,several
hereticalbookswouldfallbeforehim.”68WhatdrawsR.Nachmanisthisimageofarabbiin
study,alwayshummingnon-Jewishtunes,whorisesfromhisstudyofJewishtextsonlyto
revealheisalsoengagedinthestudyofhereticaltexts.Withhissimilaritytothe
“investigators”ofR.Nachman’sday,wewillseeElishabenAbuyaappeartowardstheend
ofTeaching64inasurprisinglypositivevaluation.
67TractateBavaBatra74.“Rabba”isacondensationof“RabAbba,”whichiswhytheTalmudicrabbiscallhim“Abba.”68Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:5.R.NachmanisreferencingBabylonianTalmud,TractateHagiga15:
184
Mendes-FlohrstatedtheJewishIntellectualis“onewholivesatorbetweenboundaries
cognitive,cultural,andsocial.Straddlingtheseboundaries,theJewishintellectualsfind
themselvesdividedbetweentherespectiveclaimsoftheprovincesofthought,normsand
valuesinwhichtheysimultaneouslyreside.”69R.NachmanseesRabbaBarBarHannahand
ElishabenAbuyaassimilarlystraddlingboundaries,theformerbetweenrealityand
fantasy,thelatterbetweenfaithandheresy.InclearoppositiontotheTalmudicrabbis'
responsestotheirrespectivefantasyandheresy,R.Nachmanvaluestheircontribution
towardsmakingsenseofhischangingtopography.Inhisattempttoarticulatehisown
position,hesignalstheserabbisashisprecursors.Whatmightthistopographylooklike,
andisitsimilartothatwhichVeblenhaslaidoutforBorges?
Teaching64ofLikkuteiMoharaniswidelyrecognizedasatenetofR.Nachman's
worldview.InitR.Nachmanlaysoutthetopographyofthelimitandthepossibilitieshe
seesofcrossingit.Hedevelopshisconceptofthe"VacantSpace"asaspacethatonlya
selectfewmaytravel:wayfarers,wanderers,zadikim.Anyoneelsewouldgetlost;fall
throughthebottomintoheresy.Themostcomprehensiveinterpretationofteaching64
belongstoJosephWeissandisanessentialbackgroundtomyownreading.70However,
Weiss’effortsarelimitedtothephilosophicalunderstandingoftheconceptof“Vacant
Space,”anddealsexclusivelywiththeepistemologicalthesisR.Nachmandevelops.Mytask
herewillbetoconsiderthesocialimplicationsofthe“VacantSpace,”andunderstandits
69Mendes-Flohr,DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity,14.70See:Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,Ch.8.and:NoamZadoffandJonathanMeir,"TheEmptySpace,SabbateanismandItsMelodies-JosephWeiss'ReadingofLiqquteiMoharan64,"Kabbalah:JournalfortheStudyofJewishMysticalTexts15(2006).
185
significancetoR.Nachman’sidentificationofanemergingpossibilityofin-between-ness,
withinwhichhemightoperate.
SincethisisthefirstofR.Nachman’steachingsthatwearereading,anasideisinorder:
TheassociativeelementisverypowerfulinR.Nachman’steachings,whichmakesthem
difficulttofollowattimes.Themarkeroffree-associationistheterm“bechina,”–literally
“aspect,”“facet,”“dimension.”ShaulMagiddefinesthistermasa“meta-midrashicliterary
trope.”71Theterm“trope”maybeoutofplacehere,sincetheessentialpointabout
“bechina”isneitheritsfigurativeusenoritsrecurrenceasatheme.Infact,thesemantic
denotationof“bechina”istoovastandvagueforittobeofusetothereadernavigatingR.
Nachman’sthoughts.Nor,ontheotherhand,aretheformalrelationsofthetwoelements
beinglinkedbytheterm“bechina”properlydefinable.Totheextentthatsuchadefinition
wouldbecoterminouswithatypologyofassociationassuch,identifying“bechina”asa
“trope”seemscounterintuitive(oratleastcounter-associative)toitsownconnotationof
animaginative,freelyassociativelinkbeingmade.“Bechina”pointstoatypeofrelationship
thatliesbeyonddefinition.Inthatsense,Ibelievewewoulddowelltoread“bechina”
(whenweencounterit)asameta-structuralindicatorofthosepointsinwhichR.
Nachman’sexegesisturnsintoimaginativefree-association.Withthatinmindlet’sproceed
toTeaching64.
71ShaulMagid,"AssociativeMidrash:ReflectionsonaHermaneuticalTheoryinRabbiNachmanofBraslav'sLikkuteiMoharan,"inGod'sVoicefromtheVoid:OldandNewStudiesinBratslavHasidism,ed.ShaulMagid(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2002),16.
186
Teaching64beginswiththesummary72ofaclassicideainLurianicCabala,73thetzimtzum.
GoddesiredtocreatethephysicalworldforHismercy,forHewantedtorevealHis
mercy,andiftherewerenoworld,uponwhomwouldHehaveexhibitedHismercy?
[…]WhenGodwantedtocreatetheworld,therewasnospacetocreateit,for
everywherewastheinfinitedivinity,Hethereforewithdrewthelight[ofHisown
infinitedivinity]tothesides,andbythisWithdrawal74aVacantSpace75wascreated,
andwithinthisVacantSpace,therecametobeallthedaysandmeasurements,that
arethecreationoftheworld(asitiswritteninEtzHaChaiminthebeginning).76
R.Nachmanconcludesthefirstparagraphoftheteachingwithabibliographicreferenceto
EtzHaChaim,themajorworkofLurianicCabala.77
NextR.Nachmancontinuestooneofthebasicphilosophical-theologicalparadoxesthat
arisefromtheLurianicideaofGod’swithdrawal,namely,thatifitwasnecessaryforGodto
withdrawHimselfinordertoallowthecreationofanythingseparatefromHisinfinity,then
theVacantSpace,andwithittheentirephysicalworldthatwascreatedtherein,wouldbe
entirelydevoidofdivinity.Insistingonthewithdrawalofdivinityfromthephysicalworld
72ForR.Nachman’sdisciplesandreadersofthetime,thisbriefreferencetofamiliarthemesandCabalisticideaswouldhavebeenasummary,meantonlyasanexpositiontohissubsequentelaborationonthetheme.Totheinterestedcontemporaryreaderforwhomthesebriefpassagesareanythingbuta“recap,”Iwouldsuggestfollowinguponthereferencesinthefollowingfootnotes,especially:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism.And:Scholem,OntheKabbalahandItsSymbolism.73RabbiYitzhakLuria(1534–1572)wasthemajorfigureoftheSafedcircleofcabalistsinthe16thcentury.FormoreonhisinnovativecontributionstotheJewishmysticaltraditionsee:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism,Ch.7.ForathesisonR.Luria’sinfluenceonJewishstorytelling(includingtheHasidicstory)see:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.74ReferredtoasTzimtzuminHebrew.75ReferredtoasChalalHaPanuiinHebrew.76Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:1.Myadditionsforpurposesofclarificationwillbemarkedwithsquareparentheses.-YL77EtzHaChaimisthemajorbookofLurianicCabala.ItcontainstheteachingsofR.LuriacollectedbyhisstudentR.ChaimVittalinSafedintheearly1570s.
187
istheonlywaytoensuretheworlddoesnotgetswallowedupbytheinfinitedivinityand
thusloseitsveryexistence,predicatedasitisuponitbeingseparatefromGod.Yet,ifwe
acceptthispremise,weareforcedtoadmitthatthephysicalworldweinhabitisaGod-less
world.LurianicCabalawouldthusforceusintoaradicallytranscendentalviewof
divinity.78FortheHasidicmovement,whosefounder’smottowas“thewholeearthisfullof
Hisglory,”79thiswasnotaneasyconclusiontoaccept.
WeisshassuggestedthatthebasictheologicaltensionattheheartoftheHasidicmovement
isthatofreconcilingdivineimmanencewithdivinetranscendence.Heseesthisasaresult
oftheattempttoreconciletheopposingideasofZoharicandLurianicCabalainHasidism’s
popularizationofmysticism.80ForR.Nachman,suggestsWeiss,thisattempted
reconciliationproduceshisdeepestcritiqueofrationalism,therejectionofthe“lawofnon
contradiction,”81ultimatelyclaimingthatwithintheVacantSpaceGodbothexistsanddoes
notexist,and—mostsignificantly—claimingthatthisisnotaflippantepistemological
positionbuttheempiricalrecognitionofanontologicalcontradictionthatisthefoundation
oftheVacantSpace.Thatistosay,thisontologicalcontradictionisthespacewithinwhich
thephysicalworldcametobe.“Forwemustsaythattwooppositesarewithin[Vacant
Space]:existenceandnon-existence[ofGod],”82R.Nachmanexplains.
78ThisimplicationofLurianicCabalaisthesourceoftheclassical(yetsimplistic)oppositionbetweenimmanenceandtranscendenceinCabala.TheformerparadigmaticallyexpressedintheZohar’ssystemofGod’s10emanations,andthelatterexpressedintheLurianicideaofGod’swithdrawal.Forfurtherdiscussionofthissee:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism.And:MosheIdel,KabbalahNewPerspectives(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1988).79TheBa’alShemTov,founderofHasidismc.1740,madethisversefromIsaiah[6:3]anintegralpartofhisinnovativeteaching.80See:Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,Ch.6.81Theprincipleoflogicthatstipulates:ifAistrue,itsoppositecannotalsobetrue.82Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:1.
188
Weissfurtheridentifiesthelawofnon-contradictionasparadigmaticofrationalistthought
inR.Nachman’sday.InthisteachingR.Nachmandevelopshismostelaborateand
comprehensiverejectionoftheenlightenment’srationalistideal.Unlikeotherteachings
whereR.Nachmanfocuseshiscriticismonthefutilityheseesintherationalists'endless
productionofquestions,convertingeveryanswerintoanewquestiontobeanswered,83in
thisteachingheattemptsamorecomprehensiveengagementwithrationalismthatwould
raisethestakes,sotospeak.ThusR.Nachmanbeginsthenextsectionoftheteaching:
Andknow,thattherearetwokindsofheresy:thereisheresythatcomes
fromexternalwisdom,andaboutwhichitiswritten(EthicsCh.2):andknow
whattoansweraheretic;forthisheresyhasananswer.84
Weissexplainsthatthisfirstkindofheresyisproducedby"thequestionsthatformoutof
theencounterbetweenreligionandthesciences,"85thatis,betweenreligiousbeliefsand
rationalinvestigations,andtheycanberesolvedrationally.R.Nachman'simplicationin
referencing"knowwhattoansweraheretic"86relatestotheverb"know,"whichistosay
thatthecontradictionsofreligionandreasonareepistemological,andthusresolvable
throughreason.Moreover,statesWeiss,"inthisrealmof[epistemological]contradiction
rationalthoughtisking,anddiscursivethinkingisnotonlyone'spermissionbutone's
83Rationalinvestigationproposestoanswerquestions,onlytoeventuallyfortifythequestionbyprovidingtheverylogicalconditionsthataretobedoubtedinposingthequestioninthefuture.ThusR.Nachmandescribesthefutilityofrationalinvestigationin:LikkuteiMoharan,2,7:8.84LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:2.85ZadoffandMeir,"TheEmptySpace,SabbateanismandItsMelodies-JosephWeiss'ReadingofLiqquteiMoharan64,"221.86EthicsoftheFathers2:17
189
obligation."87
"Butthereisanotherkindofheresy,"continuesR.Nachman.Thecontradictionsofthis
otherheresydonotemergeoutofrationalinvestigation,thoughtheyappearto.
Thereareseveralquestionsandcontradictionsamongtheinvestigators,that
intrutharenotrelatedtoknowledge,andthequestionsarenullandvoid,
butsincetheycannotberesolvedthroughhumanreason,theytherefore
appeartobe[epistemological]contradictions.88
Inthistypologyofcontradictions,Weissexplains,R.Nachman"turnstheontologicalterms
ofLurianicCabalaintologicalterms,"89concludingthatthecreationoftheworldthrough
thewithdrawalalsobroughtabouttheexistenceofepistemologicalcontradictions,thatis,
theapparentcontradictionbetweenscientificobservationandreligiousfaith.90Italso
broughtintoexistencetherationalfacultyrequiredfortheirresolution.
R.Nachmanthencirclesbacktotheontologicalrealminwhichthewithdrawalofdivinity
impliesitsexistenceandnon-existencewithinthecreatedworlditself(ratherthanwithin
humanperceptionofit).Thiscontradictionproducesthesecondkindofheresy,theheresy
thatcomesfromtheVacantSpace,thatis,fromthespaceinwhichdivinitydoesnotexist.It
leadstoheresywhenitisconfusedforaresolvable,epistemologicalcontradiction.Theshift
R.Nachmanoffershere,explainsWeiss,movesawayfromseeingthewithdrawal,andthe
87Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,129.88Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:2.89ZadoffandMeir,"TheEmptySpace,SabbateanismandItsMelodies-JosephWeiss'ReadingofLiqquteiMoharan64,"221.90WeissfurthermapsthisdistinctionontotheLurianicdistinctionbetween“shells”and“sparks”(klipotandnitzotzot)withinthecreatedworld,butthisisbeyondourscopeatthemoment.
190
resultingexistenceandnon-existenceofGod,asalogicalcontradiction.Thatis,R.Nachman
doesnotwanttoseethiscontradictionasaresultofepistemologicalfallacieswe
experienceashumans,asaresultoffallaciesinourabilitytoknoworperceiveanything
aboutthephysicalexistenceofourworld.Instead,R.Nachmanproposestoseethe
contradictionbetweenfaithandreasonaspreciselythesuccessfulperceptionofthe
manifestationoftheontologicalcontradictionformedbythewithdrawal,andthatisthe
conditionofpossibilityofourcreatedexistence.
ForWeiss,thefirstsectionsofTeaching64serveasapointofdeparturetoelaborateupon
R.Nachman'sconceptof"thequestion"(thatis,religiousdoubt)astheultimaterecognition
oftheontologicalcontradictionandthus,paradoxically,theultimateexperienceoffaith.
FromthispointonWeissfocuseshisdiscussionontherealmofepistemologicalquestions,
specificallyonthehumanexperienceofdoubtthatR.Nachmanseekstotransforminto
faith.Asweproceedthroughthisteaching,wewillconsiderthemanylevelsonwhichthe
VacantSpaceisalimit;withintheontological,epistemologicalandsocialtopographyofthe
world.R.Nachman’schallengeistofindamodeofcrossingthelimit,a“leapoffaith”from
onetypeof(resolvable)heresytothespaceofthesecond(unresolvable)type,without
(liketheMaskilim)gettingstuckinheresy.
InthenextparagraphR.NachmanelaboratesupontheVacantSpaceasalimit."Godfillsall
creationandencirclesallcreation[...]sotheremustbeaspacebetweenthefillingandthe
encircling,forifnotso,thenallwouldbeone."91HavingconcludedthatGodbothdoesand
91Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:2.
191
doesnotexistwithincreation,R.Nachmandrawsourattentiontoanewproblem.What
preciselyweretheontologicaleffectsofGod’swithdrawal?Ifdivinityexists(evenas
contradictory)withintheworldandallaroundtheareafromwhichitwithdrew,thenwe
arestillallwithintheinfinityofdivinepresence.Butsuchinfinitywaspreciselywhathad
tobelimitedandcontainedinorderfortheindividuationofexistencetobepossible.Here
R.NachmanoffershismostradicalunderstandingoftheVacantSpace.Thisisthespace
thatinterruptsthecontinuityoftheinfinitedivinitythatsurroundsexistencefromthe
ontologicallycontradictoryformofdivinitythatfillsallexistence.
ItistheVacantSpace[andnotGod]thatsurroundsallofcreation,andGod,
whosurroundseverything,surroundstheVacantSpace[butbetweenGod's
fillingandGod'sencirclingofeverything]in-betweendividestheVacant
Space.92
Itisworthrepeatingtheradicalnatureofthisproposal:R.Nachmanstatesthatthereisin
factaspace,inwhichGod,inanon-contradictoryyetfullyontologicalsense,doesnotexist!
And,hecontinues,thisspace(theVacantSpace)liesin-betweenthecreatedworldwe
inhabitandtheinfinitythatisthere-beyond.TheradicalnatureofR.Nachman's
understandingoftheVacantSpacebecomesevenclearerwhenweconsiderthevarious
provincesthisin-betweenspacedivides.First,itisanontologicalspacethatdividesthe
createdworldfromtheinfinitedivinity,andtheparadoxicalexistenceofGodwithinthe
worldfromHisinfiniteexistenceoutsideoftheworld.Second,itisanepistemological
spacethatmarksthelimitofrationalthought'sabilitytocomprehendreality,andbuffers
92Ibid.
192
betweentheprovinceofreasonandtheunattainableknowledgeofGodthatexistsinthe
infinitebeyond.Itistherealminwhich,asWeissarticulatesit,"thelawofnon-
contradictiondoesnotholdtrueforitself."93Lastly,andwhatismostimportantto
emphasizeinourreading,itisalsoasocialspacethatseparatesthefaithfulfromthe
"investigators,"andthespacewithinwhichhereticalbookscirculate.TheVacantSpaceisa
socialbufferzone,betweentraditionalJudaismandthenon-Jewishworld,withinwhichthe
MaskilimandtheirhereticalideasexistoutsideofJewishfaithbutarenotyetabsorbedinto
thenon-Jewishworldthatsurroundsthem.
WhatarewetodowithsuchaVacantSpace;vacantofGod,ofthebasictenetsofreason,of
religiousfaith,andfullofheresyandirresolvablecontradiction?Or,toaskthisotherwise:
wheredoesR.Nachmanlocatehimselfwithinthistopography?"Andknow,ifthereisa
zadik,whoisbechinaofMoses,hemustdeliberatelylookintotheideasofthis[second]
heresy,"hestates.Thisoverlapofsocialand(forlackofabetterword)speculative-
philosophicalrealmsisakeytounderstandingR.Nachman'steachingsingeneral,andthe
topographyoftheVacantSpaceinparticular.
Onewaytounderstandthisoverlap,asMagidstates,istorecognizethat"theological
speculationisalwayscontextual,emergingviaimaginativeinterpretationratherthanvia
purephilosophicalargumentation."94Couldwethennotsaythesameforpolitical
93Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,133.Thelawofnon-contradictionisalogicalprinciplethatstates:ifAistruetheoppositeofAcannotalsobetrue.By“doesnotholdtrueforitself”Weissmeanstoinsertthelawofnon-contradictionasthe“A”ofthelaw.Thatis,withintheepistemologyoftheVacantSpace,thestatements(1)“Aandnot-Acannotbothbetrue”and(2)“Aandnot-Acanbothbetrue,”canbothbetrue.94Magid,"AssociativeMidrash:ReflectionsonaHermaneuticalTheoryinRabbiNachmanofBraslav'sLikkuteiMoharan,"18.
193
speculation?CertainlyitisaspeculativeprojectR.Nachmanisundertaking.Hearrivesat
thein-between-nessoftheVacantSpacebycontemplatingthequestionofthelimit—
theologicalandrational,ontologicalandsocial—ofhischangingworld.Asthezadikwhose
roleispreciselytoexploretheVacantSpace,themultifacetednatureofanypossible
maneuverR.Nachmanmightconsiderattemptingwithinitwillremainacentral
observationofourfurtherreading.
FortheMaskilim,thetopographyoftheVacantSpaceiscomparabletothein-between
spaceofVeblenandMendes-Flohr’sJewishintellectual.Itiswhereoneendsupwhen
steppingoutofthelimitsofJewishtradition,butfromwhereonecannolongerbudge.For
R.Nachman,tobelodgedbetweentraditionanditsinaccessiblesurroundingsistofallinto
heresy.FortheMaskilim,heimaginesthetransitionasone-directionalthewayBorgesand
Veblendo.Thatis,theylosetheabilitytoreturntothefoldoftradition.Butthisisnottrue
forthezadik.Inthatsense,R.Nachman'sVacantSpaceisatoncemoreopenandmore
restrictedthanBorges’“Jewishmargin.”Itisrestrictedinthesensethatitisnot
propitiouslyaccessedbyjustanyone.Afterall,theMaskilimaccessitatthepriceof
irreparableheresy,whichtoR.Nachmanishardlyapropitiousresult.Butitismoreopened
inthesensethatthosethatareabletoactpropitiouslywithinit(thezadik,thatis)arealso
abletoreturnfromittothefoldofJewishtradition.
Thisabilitytoreturnhasanimportantsocialfunction.Itmediatesbetweenthecommunity
anditsoutliers.Thezadik,aswewillsee,isablenotonlytoreturnfromtheVacantSpace,
buttobringbackwithhimthoseMaskilimthathavefallenintoheresy.Thezadiksaves
194
theseMaskilimfrombeinglodgedintheVacantSpace.Inepistemologicaltermsthismeans
recognizingthedifferencebetweenresolvablerationalcontradictionsandirresolvable
ontologicalcontradictionsmistakenfortheformer.Insocialtermsthismeansmaintaining
relationswiththeMaskilimandattemptingtodrawthembackintothefoldbyentertaining
theirhereticalideas.TherewerenomorethanahandfulofsuchMaskiliminR.Nachman’s
surroundings,mostlyinUman,andhewasintouchwiththemall.95Infact,aswehave
mentioned,hespentthefinalmonthsofhislifelivingintheirhomesinUman.
Onalocallevelitappearshiseffortsweremildlysuccessful.R.NathanandlaterBraslav
biographiesrecountregularmeetingsbetweenR.NachmanandtheMaskilimofUman,as
wellasseveralMaskilimattendingthemourningritualsoverR.Nachman’spassingand
evenreturningthefollowingRoshha-ShanatopraywithR.Nachman’sfollowersathis
gravesite.96HayimLibermansumsuptheatmospherebetweenR.Nachmanandthe
Maskilim,“theMaskilimenjoyedcomingtovisitR.Nachmanandevenplayedchesswith
him.R.NachmanisknowntohavevisitedHirschBerHurwitz.”97
Thepossibilityofaspacethatseparatesbetweenthetraditionalandthe“external”isR.
Nachman’sinnovationnotonlyinmetaphysicalterms,butinsocialtermsaswell.It
conceptualizesanin-betweenspace,withinwhichMaskilimmayexist—getstuck,
95See:Liberman,"R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim."96ReferencestothisfromR.Nathan’sbiographyofR.Nachman(see:Sternhartz,ChayeyMoharan.)andlatersources(see:AvrahamHazan,SeferSippurimNifla'im(Jerusalem:H.Zukerman,1935).)havebeencollectedin:Liberman,"R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim."97"R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim,"208.HirschBerHurwitz(1785–1857)wasayoungMaskiliminUmanandoneofthefirstinEasternEurope.In1825hemovedtoEngland,convertedtoChristianityandchangedhisnametoHermanHedwigBernard.HeservedasaprofessorofOrientallanguagesinCambridgeuntilhisdeath.(See:ibid.,211cf.37,appendix4(18-19).
195
perhaps—withouttotallydetachingfromJudaism.InhisconceptualizationoftheVacant
Spaceasaplacefromwhichthezadik“retrieves”theheretics,itiscertainlynotadesirable
location.ButinR.Nachman’sowntermsitisalocationthatnonethelessallowsfortheshift
inonesrelationtoJewishtradition,fromthecontinuityalongwhichreligiousleadersofthe
timepositionedthemselves,intothekindofcontiguitythattheVacantSpacemaintains
withthecreatedworld.Ifweconsiderthetransitionfromcontinuitytocontiguitywith
traditionakeymomentintheformationofModernJewishLiterature,98theninthesense
thatR.Nachman’soperationswithintheVacantSpacewereconceivedas“retrieval”and
wereaimedagainsttherelocationofJewsintothisspace,heishardlya“forerunnerof
modernJewishliterature.”99Buttotheextentthatherecognizeditasaspacewithinwhich
theZadikaughttooperate,hiswritingofthisspacepartakesintheprocessesbywhichthe
edgewasopenedintoalocationin-betweentheJewsandtheirnon-Jewishsurroundings.
Furthermore,totheextentthatthissocialcontiguityisalsomirroredintheoutlinesofthe
PaleofSettlement,itmaynothavebeenaspaceR.Nachmandesiredtoenter,buthe
nonethelessfoundhimselfwithinit,atleastonthegeo-politicallevelwehavealready
discussed.Inthatsense,histhoughtsonthezadik’spossibleoperationswithintheVacant
Spacearealsoadiscussionofhispossibleoperationswithinthenewsocialspacesofthe
Paleandanemancipatedsociety.
98AsisconceptualizedbyDanMiron.See:Miron,FromContinuitytoContiguitytowardaNewJewishLiteraryThinking.99See:Schwartz,"RabbiNachmanofBratslav:ForerunnerofModernJewishLiterature."
196
Antiphilosophy
HowdoestheepistemologicalsignificanceofmaneuveringtheVacantSpacerelatetothe
socialsignificanceofitsexploration?Havingindicatedthesimilaritiesanddifferences
betweenthesocialtopographyoftheVacantSpace,thePaleofSettlementandBorges’
ideasabout“Jewishmarginality,”thenextstepwillbethecomparisonbetweenTeaching
64andBorges’thoughtonthelimitsofrationalism.Aguidetothiscomparisonwillbe
BrunoBosteelsdiscussionof“BorgesasAntiphilosopher.”100Thespeculativemetaphysics
ofR.Nachman'sVacantSpaceiscomparablewithwhatBrunoBosteelsdescribesasBorges'
antiphilosophicalsysteminseveralways.Firstly,asisevidentfromthecritiqueof
rationalismcontainedinthisteaching,R.Nachman'spositionopposesastrictrationalistic
understandingoftheworldasmuchasitopposesanaiveanti-rationalism.Thatis,R.
Nachmandividesbetweencontradictionsthatcannotberesolvedbyreason(thesecond
kind,thecontradictionsoftheVacantSpace)andthosethatcanberesolvedbyreasonand
withregardstowhich,asWeissstates,“discursivethinkingis[…]one'sobligation."101In
developinghisposition,R.Nachman’s“rejectionofsystematicthinkingisinitself
astonishinglysystematic.”102Furthermore,thissystematicrejectionofsystematicthought
followsthecontoursofwhatBosteelsidentifiesastheexemplaryantiphilosophicalposition.
"Opposedtotheuniversalityclaims[sic.]oftruthbut[…]alsoforeverinsearchofaradical
gesturethatwouldbeable,ifnotfullytoreplace,thenatleastcontinuouslytocompete
100BrunoBosteels,"BorgesasAntiphilosopher,"Vanderbilte-journalofLuso-Hispanicstudies3(2006).101Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,129.102Bosteels,"BorgesasAntiphilosopher,"1.
197
withtheprestigeoftruthinphilosophy.”103ForR.Nachmanthisgestureistheparadoxical
natureofFaith.
Wecandistinguishafewgeneralcluesthatservetodetectan
antiphilosophicalapproachtothinking:first,theassumptionthatthelimits
oflanguagecoincidewiththelimitsoftheworld;second,thereductionof
truthtobeingnothingmorethanalinguisticorrhetoricaleffect,theoutcome
ofhistoricallyandculturallyspecificlanguagegames;third,anappealto
whatliesjustbeyondlanguage,orattheupperlimitofthesayable,asa
domainofmeaningirreducibletotruth;and,finally,inordertogainaccessto
thisdomain,thesearchforaradicalact,suchasthereligiousleapoffaithor
therevolutionarybreak,theintensethrillofwhichwoulddisqualifyin
advanceanysystematictheoreticalorconceptualelaboration.104
AswereadthroughtherestofTeaching64wewillencounterthreeofthese“clues.”105
Andknow,ifthereisazadik,whoisbechinaofMoses,hemustdeliberately
lookintotheideasofthis[second]heresy,andeventhoughtheycannotbe
resolved[...]Forthesecontradictionsandquestionsofthis[second]heresy
thatcomefromtheVacantSpace,theyarebechinaofsilence,forthereisno
103Ibid.,2.104Ibid.105Wewillseethefirst,thirdandfourthofthese“clues”expressedinTeaching64.Thesecond“clue,”thatofthehistoricalandculturalcontingencyofknowledge,isexpressedbyR.Nachmaninotherteachings,whichwewillnotdiscusshere.Seeforexample:Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,29.
198
resolutionforthem.Forthecreation[oftheworld]wasthroughspeech,asit
iswritten(Psalms33[:6]):“BythewordoftheLordweretheheavensmade,
andallthehostofthembythebreathofHismouth.”Andinspeechthereis
wisdom[...]Andspeechisthelimitofallthings,forHedelimitedHis
knowledgewithintheletters[withwhichtheworldwascreated106].Butin
theVacantSpace[...]thereisnospeech,norknowledgewithoutletters,and
thereforethecontradictionsthatcomefromthere,theyarebechinaofsilence
[...]Thatiswhyonemaynotenter[theVacantSpace]andlookintothese
wordsofheresyandcontradictionexceptforazadikwhoisbechinaofMoses
whoisbechinaofsilence,forMosesisbechinaofsilence,inthebechinathat
heiscalled“'slowofspeech”(Exodus4[:11]).107
Sincelettersandwordsarethebuildingblocksofthecreatedworld,astheideaofGod
creatingtheworldthroughspeechwouldsuggest,thelimitsoflanguagearethelimitsof
thecreatedworld.Languagecanarticulatecontradictionsthatemergefromcreationforit
ismadeofthesamesubstanceascreation—wordsandletters.Furthermore,“[God]
delimitedHisknowledgewithintheletters,”108makinglanguagethevesselofknowledge.
IntheVacantSpacethereisnocreation,thuslanguagecannotarticulateitandknowledge
ofitisnotpossible.Theveryarticulationofthequestion“doesGodexist?”isputtinginto
wordsGod’sparadoxicalexistenceandnon-existenceandcausestheontological
106ThisisanallusiontotheSeferYetzirah,oneoftheearliestJewishmysticaltexts,whichbeginsbyrecountingthat“GodcreatedtheUniverseinthirty-twomysteriouspathsofwisdom[…]tensefirotareitsfirmament,andtwentytwolettersitsfoundation”(myparaphrasing).107Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:3.108Ibid.
199
preconditionofexistencetoappearasanepistemologicalcontradiction.Thisiswhat
happenswhenoneattemptstoputintolanguageaknowledgeofwhatliesbeyondit,thatis,
beyondwhatwordscancreate.InBorges’antiphilosophicalthinking,Bosteelscontinues,
"somuchweightisgiventotheeffectsoflanguageandthechangeitcanproducethatthe
principleofnon-contradiction,cornerstoneofclassicallogicifthereeverwasone,no
longerapplies[…]Whentakentoanextreme,thisprivilegingofrhetoricoverlogiccan
easilylendtheargumentamysticalovertone.”109
R.Nachmanconcludesthatitisnotpossibletosayanythingaboutthefunctionoflanguage
intheVacantSpacesincethereisnone.AtthispointR.Nachman'steachingshiftsthe
discussiontothefunctionoflanguageinthecreatedworld.Thiswillleadquiteexplicitlyto
adiscussionofthesocialrealm.
Andknow,thatdisagreementisbechinaofthecreationoftheworld.[God]
withdrewHislighttothesides,andtherewasVacantSpace,andwithinitHe
createdallofcreation[...]bymeansofthewords[thatHeinsertedintothe
VacantSpace].Andsoisthebechinaofdisagreement,forifallscholars110
wereone,therewouldbenospaceforthecreationoftheworld,ifnotforthe
disagreementbetweenthem,wherebytheydividefromeachother,andeach
pullshimselfinadifferentdirection,bythisisthereformedbetweenthem
bechinaofVacantSpace,whichisbechinaofwithdrawal,inwhichisthe
creationoftheworld[accomplished]bymeansofspeech.
109Bosteels,"BorgesasAntiphilosopher,"4.110R.NachmanrefersheretoscholarsofJewishtradition,butthistermcouldbeunderstoodmorebroadlyaswell.
200
Forallthewordsthateachofthemspeaks,allareonlyforthecreationofthe
world,whichisdonebythemintheVacantSpacebetweenthem.For
scholarscreateeverythingbymeansoftheirwords[...]Butcautionisneeded
nottospeaktoomuch,onlyasisneededforthecreationoftheworld,no
more.111
R.Nachmanelaboratesseveralpointsaboutthesocialaspectofthisteaching.First,he
connectsthecosmologyoftheprevioussectionstothetopographyofsocialdiscourse.
EveryscholarisamicrocosmofthegrandLurianiccosmologicaldrama.Scholarshavethe
dualroleofcreatingtheVacantSpacebetweenthem,andoffillingitwithwordsofcreation.
“Thisdecisiveroleofthespeakingsubject,finally,constitutesafifthandfinalfeaturethatis
typicalofantiphilosophy,”112BosteelsconcludesregardingBorges’antiphilosophical
system.ForBosteelsthereisamysticalovertonetoantiphilosophy.Thecentralityofthe
speakingsubjectisclearinthispassagefromTeaching64,butforR.Nachmanmysticismis
anintegralpartofhissystem.Havingmappedtheontologicalontotheepistemologicaland
socialrealms,wecanarticulateR.Nachman’sframingoftheepistemologicalinLurianic
terms.Theepistemologicalunitypresumedbyrationalismiswhatneedstobewithdrawn
forasocialworldofdiscoursetobecreated.R.Nachman’sscholarisempoweredwiththe
abilitytocreatethisworld.ButheisalsostrandedwithintheLurianicdramainthesense
that—whileeverytimehedisagreeshecreatesVacantSpace,whichhecanfillwith
words—everyinstanceoffillingVacantSpacewithcreation,asR.Nachmanhasradically111Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:4.112Bosteels,"BorgesasAntiphilosopher,"6.
201
argued,isalsothesimultaneouscreationofabufferbetweenthewithdrawnandthe
createdtherein.Thescholar,inthatsense,isalwaysisolatedfromtheworldhecreatesby
theVacantSpacenecessaryforhisintellectualindividuationandexistence.Thescholar
hereresemblestheinfinitedivinitywhoseeveryattemptatcreationisalsoadistancingof
Himselfthere-from.113TheontologicaltermsinwhichGodcreatedtheworldaremapped
ontotheepistemologicaltermsinwhichscholarscreateknowledgewithinthatworld
Inthenextsectionoftheteachingboththeontologicalandtheepistemologicaltermsof
“worldcreation”aremappedontothesocialtermsofcommunityinclusionandexclusion.
Unlikelanguage,thezadikisabletooperateinthecreatedworldaswellastheVacant
Space.Insocialterms,thezadikstraddlesbothsidesofthedivide,atoncewithinthe
paradoxicalcreatedworld,drawnbythegravitationalpullofthelimit,andatthesametime
outsideoftheworld,engagingwithheresiesandhereticsonallthreerealms.Thisisfirst
andforemostR.Nachman'sself-location,andself-assignmentoftheroleofpropitiously
exploringthepossibilityofanin-betweenbeyondtheedge.Continuingtothenextsection,
wecometoR.Nachman’schosenprecursorElishabenAbuya.
Andknow,thatbymeansofthemelodyofthezadikthatisbechinaofMoses,
heraisesthesoulsfromthisheresyoftheVacantSpaceintowhichtheyhave
fallen.Forknow,thateachandeverydisciplineofstudyintheworldhasa
particulartuneandmelody,whichisparticulartothatdisciplineofstudy.
113Aswewillseeinthenextchapter,whenwereadBorges’“AVindicationoftheCabala,”hetoosawtheroleoftheintellectualinsimilarterms:“Theintellectual[…]remotelyapproximatestheLord.”(See:Borges,SelectedNon-Fictions,85.)
202
Andfromthatmelodyisderivedthatdisciplineofstudy.Andthisisbechina
of(Psalms47[:8]):“singyepraiseswithunderstanding”114;thatevery
understandinghasaparticularsongandtune.Andeventhedisciplineof
heresy,ithasatune[sic.]andmelodyparticulartothehereticaldisciplineof
study.Thisiswhatoursagesofblessedmemorysaid(TractateHagiga15:):
“Whatwasitabout‘Other’?Greeksongneverquithismouth,andwhenhe
wouldrisefromhisstudy,severalhereticalbookswouldfallbeforehim.”For
onedependsupontheother,forbymeansofthesongthatneverquithis
mouth,bythat[song]thehereticalbookswouldfallbeforehim.Forthatsong
wasparticulartothatheresyandtheblasphemywithinit.115
R.Nachmanturns“Other’s”famousheresyintoafightagainstheresy.Knowingthemelody
ofadisciplinegivesthezadikanabilitytocontestthatdiscipline,andredeemindividuals
whohavefallenintoitsheresy.Music,unlikelanguage,doesexistintheVacantSpaceandis
themeansbywhichthezadikisabletomaneuverit.116TheGreeksongisnotasignof
heresy,butameansbywhich“Other”isabletodefeatGreekheresy,tocauseitsarguments
(initsbooks)tofallbeforehim.Inthismovefromthecosmologicalnatureofmelodiesto
itsplacein“Other’s”mouthduringstudy,R.Nachmanherecontinuestoindicatethe
overlappingnatureofthecosmologicalwiththesocialtopographyoftheJewishcommunity.
114TheHebrewreads“singmaskil,”whichisalsothetermforaJewishEnlightenmentscholar.115Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:5.116TheplaceofmusicinR.Nachman’sthoughtisafascinatingtopic,butbeyondthescopeofourpresentconcerns.Thereaderinterestedinthetopicmayfindthefollowingreferenceshelpful.InR.Nachman’steachings,see:ibid.,3,65,282.,LikkuteiMoharan,2,63.Inresearch,see:Weiss,MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav,Ch.5.;Mark,MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav,Ch.4.ChaniHaranSmith,TuningtheSoul:MusicasaSpiritualProcessintheTeachingsofRabbiNahmanofBratzlav(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2010).
203
Thatis,“Other’s”liminalplacewithinthesocialtopographyturnsouttobeacosmological
positionwithintheVacantSpaceaswell.Andthisidentificationoftheoverlapbetween
cosmologicalandsocialrevealsthetruenatureof“Other’s”apparentheresy,ascombating
againstheresy.ThisisalsothepositionR.Nachmanascribestohimself.Hisrelationswith
theMaskilimarenotevidenceofahereticalinclinationbutofadesiretocontestheresy.His
explorationofhereticalideasispresentedintermsofmaneuveringbetweenthelimitsof
Jewishtraditionanditsbeyond.Thiseffortisofredemptivepower,hecontinues:
Andfaithtoohasamelodyandtuneparticulartothatfaith,andaswesee
thatevenbeliefsofnon-Jewsintheirerroneousaspects,everyfaithofnon-
Jewshasaparticularmelody,whichtheysingandwithwhichtheyprayin
theirhousesofworship.117
TheideaR.Nachmandevelopsnextisthatthereisalsothemelodyofultimatefaith,with
whichitispossibletocrossoverthecontradictionsandheresyoftheVacantSpaceandend
upintheinfinitelightofdivinitythatliesbeyond.“Forthisisthemelodythatpertainsto
faithintheinfinitelightitself,”118heexplains.Thismelodyofultimatefaith,andhencethe
possibilityofcrossingtheVacantSpaceentirelyintoinfinitedivinity—whichwould,social
terms,meancrossingintothebroadernon-Jewishculture—willonlyberevealedinthe
daysofthemessiah.
Andbechinaofthismelodyofultimatefaith,noonecanmeritexceptthe117Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,64:5.118Ibid.
204
zadikofthegenerationwhoisbechinaofMoses,whoisatthatleveloffaith,
whoisbechinaofsilence.
Andthereforebymeansofthemelodyofthezadik,whoisbechinaofMoses,
bythisareraisedupandexitallthesoulsthathavefallenintothisheresyof
theVacantSpace[…]forbythismelodyandfaithisallheresyannulled,and
allmelodiesareincludedand[thus]annulledwithinthismelody,thatis
aboveeverything.119
Thezadikofthegenerationraisesthosethathavefallenintoheresy,intotheVacantSpace,
intothesocialspacetheyarenowlodgedin.Themessianicmomentinthisteachingliesin
thefactthatthisuniquezadikdoesnotraisethesoulsoutoftheVacantSpacebackintothe
foldoftradition,butratherraisesthemintotheinfinitebeyond,ontheothersideofthe
VacantSpace.InVeblen’shorizonallJewsleavetheirtradition,cross“theedge”andremain
(preeminently)lodgedin-between,forthebenefitofwhathecallsmodernEurope.ForR.
Nachman,theinitialpossibilityofsuccessfullycrossingoverthelimitisreservedfora
selectfewzadikim,buthismessianichorizonsharestheimageofallJewsdepartingfrom
“thecreatedworld.”RatherthangetstuckintheVacantSpace,however,theymanageto
crossovertotheinfinitedivinity.WhatitwouldmeaninsocialtermsforJewstocrossinto
“thegreatbeyond”ofEuropeansocietyisnotdiscussedintheteaching.ImaginingallJews
crossingthelimitisamessianicimageforR.Nachman,andheendstheteachingwiththat.
119Ibid.
205
SectionTwo:
Conclusion
HowarewetoreadtheexplorationofthelimitinR.NachmanandBorges’stories?And,
morespecifically,whatshouldbethedifferenceinourunderstandingofthismaneuvering
betweentheirrespectivewritings?WehaveseenhowBorgesperceivestheJudaicasa
“modelofmarginality,”andwehaveseenR.NachmanandBorgesbothunderstand“the
edge”asaquestionoflocationratherthananexplanatorydesignation.Wehavealso
stressedthesimilaritiesbetweenBorgesandR.Nachman’squestionregardingthe
inscriptionofwritingatthelimitasanopeningontoanin-betweenspace.Thedifference
weshouldnowmentionliesinthesenseinwhichtheirrepresentationsofthisspacepoint
toa“model.”
Theverynecessityofhavingamap,ofdevelopingamodel,asPierreBourdieuargues,
atteststotheobserver'sdistancefromthetopographybeingnavigated.Themodelandthe
mapare“theanalogywhichoccurstoanoutsiderwhohastofindhiswayaroundina
foreignlandscapeandwhocompensatesforhislackofpracticalmastery,theprerogativeof
thenative,bytheuseofamodelofallpossibleroutes.”1Thewayfarer,toborrowthe
characternavigatingVeblen’smap,neverhasafullviewofallthepossibleroadsinthe
momentofchoosingone.Hedoesnotyetknowwhatliesbeyondthisorthatmountain,
pastthatoranotherturn.R.Nachmanshouldberead,inthissense,notaselaboratinga
“Jewishmodelofmarginality,”(aproposalwhichwouldnotbesodifferentfromthe1PierreBourdieu,OutlineofaTheoryofPractice(Cambridge,U.K.;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977),2.
206
anachronistictitleof“JewishIntellectual”)somuchasthereflectionsofawayfarer,turning
acornertodiscoveranedgehemightnothaveexpectedtofind,andsettingouttoexplore
beyondit.Hispositionprecedesthemapthatwillarticulateit.
ForBorges,ontheotherhand,themodeltakesprecedence.OnlyafterdevelopingVeblen’s
socialmodelofJewishmarginalityisitpossibletolocatehimselfwithinit.Thetopography
isthusentirelypredictablealreadyatthemomentofsettingoffonhisjourney.Inreading
Borges’articulationofhisin-between-nessintermsof“theJudaic”weshouldtakenoteof
“hissituationasanobserver,excludedfromtherealplayofsocialactivitiesbythefactthat
hehasnoplace(exceptbychoiceorbywayofagame)inthesystemobserved.”2Certainly,
BorgesmaintainsnosuchdistancefromthequestionsofArgentinetraditionandits
relationtoEurope.However,aswehaveseenindiscussingBorges’gameofinheritance,his
mappingoftheArgentinesituationonto“theJudaic,”andhisproductionof“theJudaic”asa
model,takeontheformofsimultaneousattractionanddistancing.Incontradistinction,R.
Nachman’sarticulationofhispositionshouldnotbereadasagameofself-positioning,but
ratherasanattempttoidentifypossiblearticulationsofapositioninthemaking.
Everyturnthewayfarermakes,everysocialchange,revealsunexpectedlocationswithinit,
andtheneedtoadaptafterthefact."[The]detachmentofthepresentfromitsmooringsin
thepast—anditselevationasanautonomouscategoryofexperienceandanindependent
sphereofmeaning—isoftenregardedastheultimatehallmarkofthesecularization
inauguratedwiththeadventofmodernity[…]Thefoundingsensibilityofmodernity,hence,
2Ibid.,1.
207
entailsaself-consciousdiscontinuitywiththepast,”3statesMendes-Flohr.Certainlysuch
detachmentfromthepastischaracteristicofJewishintellectualsinVeblen’saccountas
well.SharingthedetachmentoftheJewishintellectual,Borges—havingnotraditionand
everytradition—willarticulatetheincalculablepossibilitiesandcombinationsofmapping
thepathinsuchparadigmatictropesasthelabyrinth.4However,asawayfarernot
expectingthisdetachment,forwhomsuch“detachmentofthepresent”emergesthrough
unpredictablesocialchange,R.Nachmanwillnotsharethismap.Forhim,thearticulation
ofhispositionprecedesthevocabularyofthemodel.Hehasyettofigureoutwhatlies
beyondthenextmomentofsocialchange,asheattemptstoarticulatetheuncertaintyofan
edgeanditsdeparture.
Wereturnonceagaintothequestion:wheredoesoneendupwhenonedepartsfromthe
edge?InSectionIwehaveexploredthepoeticsofsuchdeparture.InSectionIIwehave
discussedthebroadersocialandepistemologicalsignificanceofsuchdeparture.Inthenext
(andfinal)sectionwewillaskabouttherepresentationofsuchdepartureintheirstories.I
willdemonstrateR.NachmanandBorges’sharedefforttocapturethemanypoetic,social
andepistemologicalaspectsofthisdepartureinnarrativeform.
Returningtoourdiscussionofbeginnings,Iwanttounderstandtheproblemof
3Mendes-Flohr,DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity,54.4Forexample,inthestory“DeathandtheCompass,”in:Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,85-94.ThemapuponwhichthedetectiveLonnrotsearchesforthecriminalScharlachhasacipher—“TheTetragrammaton—thenameofGod,JHVH—ismadeupoffourletters”(ibid.,94.)—withwhichScharlachisfinallylocated.Inhisfinalwords,detectiveLonnrotexplainsthesuperfluousnatureofthepuzzlehehassolved,andthelabyrinthhehasfalleninto.
“Inyourlabyrinththerearethreelinestoomany,”hesaidatlast.“IknowofoneGreeklabyrinthwhichisasinglestraightline.Alongthatlinesomanyphilosophershavelostthemselvesthatameredetectivemightwelldoso,too.”
208
intransitivityasaquestionofwriting,andtoreadR.NachmanandBorges’narrativesasa
representationoftheimpossibleyetinevitabledeparturethatfollows.Inunderstanding
suchdepartureintermsofwritingintheedge—openingitupintoaspaceforthe
determinationofalternatives—wewillnotexpecttofindaleapovertheedge,butrather
itsnarrationasanendlessrecurrence.ThisisthefinalpointofjuxtapositionbetweenR.
NachmanandBorges—narratingtheeternalrecurrenceofathresholdanditscrossing.
Whatliesbetweenthemadnessofthekingandthemadnessoftheprince,between
Browning’spoetandhis(imaginary)friend,betweenanArgentineandaEuropean,
betweenazadikandanintellectual—isnarratedasgapsinepistemology,representedas
epistemologicalgapsinnarrative.Beginning,forBorgesandR.Nachman,isarepeating
moment—onethatalreadyenfoldsa“history”ofpointsofdeparturethatcannot,butmust,
beundertaken.ThisrepetitioninthestoriesofR.NachmanandBorgeswillbeexploredin
thenextchapter,throughthesignificationsofBorges’HistoriaUniversal.
209
SectionThree:ANarratologyoftheMargin
In“TheArgentineWriterandTradition”and“AVindicationoftheCabala”wehaveseen
Borges’mostfamousexpressionsofthesignificancetheJudaichadforhimasaposition
fromwhichtowriteandapoeticstowritewith.AsEdnaAizenberghasargued,Borges’
interestintheJudaicandtheJewishtextualtraditionwas“anattempttofindprecedents,
fromtheedgeoftheworld,foralternativeliterarymodels:modelsofstrategic
‘marginality.’”1InpreviouschapterswehaveseenBorgesarticulatehisideasofauthorship
andtraditionthroughdirectreferencetowhatheknewoftheJudaic.However,as
Aizenbergstates,BorgesseestheJudaicasa“literarymodel”ofdifference.Ourexploration
oftheJudaicinBorges’writingcannotbecontentwithidentifyingJewishthemesinhis
writing.Thatis,weneedtopushthequestionofBorges’inheritanceoftheJudaicbeyond
theidentificationofcitationandreferenceinhiswriting.
Certainly,themannerinwhichBorgesdesiredtomimictheJudaicinhiswritingdidnot
consistofmereallusions.IfBorgestakestheJudaictobeawayofwritingfromthemargin,
andwassuccessfulatimitatingit,weshouldexpecttofindsuch“alternativeliterary
models”expressedincontextsentirelydevoidofJudaicreferencesaswell.Aizenberg
arguesthatBorges’understandingoftheJudaicbecomesamodelforhiswriting,and
previouschaptershavediscussedboththeformandcontentofwhatBorgeswantsto
mimicintheJudaic—thatis,theaspectsofitthatserveasamodelforhisownwriting.
However,demonstrationsofthismimicryhavecontentedwiththerecognitionofallusions
1Aizenberg,BooksandBombsinBuenosAires:Borges,Gerchunoff,andArgentine-JewishWriting,106.
210
toJudaicsources.ThatBorgesquotedJewishtextsdoesnotmakehimanymore“Judaic”
thantheobsessionwith“localcolor”madethenationalistsof“TheArgentineWriterand
Tradition”anymoreArgentine.InthefirstpartofthischapterIwanttopushtheargument
thatBorgestooktheJudaictobean“alternativeliterary[model]ofstrategic‘marginality’”2
toitsconclusion.WhatthiswillmeanisthatIwillsearchforanexpressionofwhatBorges
tookasamodelinaworkthathasnomentionoftheJudaic.Iexpecttoidentifythismodel
intextsthatdealwiththethemesofsocialdifferenceanddifferentiationmorebroadly.
InTeaching64wehaveseenR.Nachman’sdepictionoftheoverlappingsocial,
epistemologicalandtheologicalaspectsofopeningup“theedgeofIsrael”intoanin-
betweenspace.InourdiscussionoftheintroductiontoSippureyMa’asiyotandtwoshort
parables,wehaveoutlinedthe“poeticsofintransitivity”throughwhichR.Nachman
stylizesthegapbetweentheedgeanditsbeyond.Wecomenowtothenarrativeformof
representingtheimpossibledepartureanditstraversing,whichR.Nachmandepictedin
thepreviouslydiscussedtexts.Themovefrompoeticstonarratologywillrevealtheway,in
whichR.NachmanandBorgesrepresentthedeparturefromtheedgeassuccessiveand
recurringevent.Inboththeirwriting,episodesofdeparturerepeatwithinasinglestory.
Thisrepetitionhighlightstheirsharedefforttocontendwithwhattheyperceiveastheir
ownlocationattheedge.Italsoemphasizestheirunderstandingofthislocationaspartofa
sequence,ofwhichtheypartakeintheircontemporarysetting,butwhichhasmanytiesto
pastprecursorsandpresentinterlocutors.
2Ibid.
211
Inchapter5wewillreadtwostoriessidebyside.ThefirstisBorges’“TheManonthe
Threshold.”3IwillnothighlightJewishmotifsinthisstory.Itincludesfewifany,andthatis
partofthereasonIchoseit.WhatIwillhighlightarethethemesofdifferenceand
differentiationandthemannerinwhichthestoryengagesthemarginasaquestionof
narration.Incontrast,RabbiNachman’sfourthtale“TheKingWhoDecreedConversion”4is
theonlyoneinhisentirecollectiontoexplicitlydistinguishbetweenJewishandnon-Jewish
characters.ThistaledealswithperhapsthefirstmodernJewtoencounter“theedge”and
negotiateitscrossing;theMarranos.However,muchlikeBorges’story,thefluidnatureof
thedemarcationbetweenJewandnon-Jewinthetalepresentsquestionsaboutthe
narrationofsuchacrossing.
Myconceptualpointofentryintothiscomparisonwillbedouble.First,througha
discussionofBorges’ideaofHistoriaUniversal—anideathatissignificantlyinflectedby
(whatBorgesclaimsis)Nietzsche’snotionof“eternalrecurrence,”anddevelopsthrough
oppositiontonotionsofprogressivehistory.BrunoBosteelsstatesthat“thetendency
alwayslingersinBorges'textstoequatethetwoproblemsofself-identityand
temporality.”5Thisisnowheremoreevidentthaninhisphilosophicaldiscussionsofthe
ideaofeternalrecurrence.Though,asGisleSelnesnotes,“Borges'attributionofthe
thoughtoftheEternalReturntoNietzscheis,onemightsuspect,primarilyapretextforhis
3Originallypublishedas:JorgesLuisBorges,"ElHombreEnElUmbral,"LaNacion,April20,1952.Itwasaddedtosubsequenteditionsofthe1949collectionElAleph.Iwillbereferringtothestoryasitappearsin:JorgeLuisBorges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,trans.NormanThomasDiGiovanni(NewYork:Bantam,1971),85-90.4Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,20b-23b.5BrunoBosteels,"AfterBorges:LiteraryCriticismandCriticalTheory"(1995),193.
212
furtherliteraryoperationsonthesubject.”6IsuggestwemustalsoreadBorges’narrative
formulationsofcyclicaltemporalityasenfoldingquestionsofidentity,differenceand
differentiation.Beforedoingso,however,wewillexplorehowthisshifttakesplacein
Borges’developmentoftheideaofHistoriaUniversal,fromaphilosophicalafterthoughtto
anaestheticoperation,andtoquestionsofsocialidentity.
Wewillencounteroursecondpointofentrymid-waythroughourreadingofthestories.In
Teaching61ofhiscollectedteachingsLikkuteiMoharan,R.Nachmanrespondsmost
directlytotheStatuteof1804anditsattempttoforcethemodernizationofEastern
EuropeanJewry.InitR.NachmandevelopsaPoliticsofSecrecyasbothasocialandapoetic
responsetotheStatute’smandatesandtheirhorizonofemancipation.Thepresentchapter
willexplorethesocialimplicationsandnarrativeformulationsofBorges’HistoriaUniversal
andR.Nachman’sPoliticsofSecrecy.
WhatBorges’HistoriaUniversalandR.Nachman’sPoliticsofSecrecyshareistheirconcern
witharepeateddeparturefromone’slocationatthelimit.Thisrepetitionstructuresthe
narrativesofbothstorieswewillread.Iproposetoreadinthisseriesofdeparturesa
narratologyofthemarginintwosenses.First,asthestoryofanencounterwiththeedge
anditstransgression.Thisencounterisrepresentedthroughepistemologicalgapsinthe
narrativeitself,andthetransgressionoftheedgebeginswiththenarrative’sabilityto
continuepastsuchgaps.Second,asastoryproducedbysuchanencounter,thesuccessive
oversteppingofepistemologicalgapsinthenarrativerepresentsthemarginasanin-6GisleSelnes,"Borges,Nietzsche,Cantor:NarrativesofInfluence,"CiberLetras6(2002),http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/ciberletras/v06/selnes.html.
213
betweenlocationthatisendlesslyrecurringandrepeatedlyopened,inaseriesofnarrative
departuresfromtheepistemologicalgapsthatstructureit.
214
Chapter5:
“HistoriaUniversal”
Itmaybethathistoriauniversalisthehistoryofahandfulofmetaphors.
Thepurposeofthisnotewillbetosketchachapterofthishistory.
(TheFearfulSphereofPascal,1951–openingsentence1)
InOctoberof1941exiledItalianphilosopherRodolfoMondolfopublishedanarticlein
Argentina’smajordailypaperLaNaciónthatoutlinedacontradictionintermsbetween
twoofNietzsche’smajorideas,“eternalrecurrence”and“thewilltopower.”2Theideaof
eternalrecurrence,heexplains,maintainsan
absoluteincompatibilitywiththewilltopower.Thetheoryofeternal
recurrencerespondedtoaclearlydeterministicandfinitisticorientation;the
willtopower,ontheotherhand,expressedanexigencyofindeterminism
andoftheinfinityofdevelopment[…]Itispreciselythewilltopowerthat
introducesinplaceofalwaysidenticalforces,acontinuousaugmentation[…]
theclosedcircleofthesystemofdefinitecombinationsbreaks,andthrough
thebreachithasitselfopenedupcomesthewilltopower,eternaltraveleron
theroadofinfiniteprogress.3
1Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,182.2RodolfoMondolfo,"LaContradiccionDeNietzsche,"LaNación,October5,1941.[AlltranslationsofSpanishtextsaremine,unlessotherwisebibliographicallyindicated.–YL]3Ibid.
215
Mondolfo’sargument,thatinfiniteprogressappearsasaradicalinnovationuponthe
recurringcycleofourownexistencedidnotappealtoBorges.Thiswasnotduetoany
affinityhefeltfordeterminism.4BorgesconsideredMondolfo’sargumentoutoftouchwith
currenteventsandtheresponsehefelttheydemanded.Overtheprevioustwoyears,
GermanyhadinvadedPolandandFrance,andovertheprevioustwomonthshadpushed
theircampaigndeepintoRussia.LeningradwasbesiegedandMoscowwasnowembattled.
Fromex-centricArgentina—inthefaceofamediafloodedwithreportsofawar,the
proportionsofwhichwouldhavebeenunfathomablejusttwodecadesearlier—Borges
preferredtocircumscribetalkof“infiniteprogress,”whetherMondolfomeantitasa
commentoncurrentaffairsornot.5
Elevenyearsalmosttothedate,afterthemilitarycoupthatbeganArgentina’s“infamous
decade,”Borgeswaswellestablishedasapublicintellectualthroughhisregular
contributionstomanyjournalsandpapers.Thepreviousdecadehadalsobroughtseveral
wavesofGermanimmigrationtoArgentina—includinginterwarimmigration,exiles
escapingtheThirdReichandJewishrefugees—alongwithavarietyofideologies.6Borges’
vocaloppositiontoNazisminArgentinawaswellknown,mostnotablyinthepagesofSur.7
4ThereaderwillrecallBorges’depictionof“thedeterminists”asanannoyingly-always-correctgroup,whichwehavepreviouslyreadin“TheArgentineWriterandTradition.”5MondolfowasexiledfromFascistItalyandthereislittlesuspicionofhimbeingaNazisympathizer.Borgesdidnotsuspecthimeither.Buthedidseeaconnectionbetweenideasof“infiniteprogress”andtheReich’sideology.HewillexpressthisattheendofhisresponsetoMondolfo’sarticle.6FormoreonGermanimmigrationtoArgentinaanditsideologicaleffects,see:RobertVincentKelz,"CompetingGermanies:TheFreieDeutscheBuhneandtheDeutschesTheaterinBuenosAires,Argentina,1938-1965"(VanderbiltUniversity,2010).And:RonaldC.Newton,"IndifferentSanctuary:German-SpeakingRefugeesandExilesinArgentina,1933-1945,"JournalofInteramericanStudiesandWorldAffairs24,no.4(1982).7ForBorges’engagementwithNazismoverthepagesofSur,see:López-Quiñones,BorgesYElNazismo:Sur(1937-1946).FormoreontheroleofthispublicationinArgentineliberalintellectualcircles,see:Gramuglio,NacionalismoYCosmopolitismoEnLaLiteraturaArgentina.
216
TwomonthsafterMondolfo’sarticle,inDecember1941,Japanjoinedthewar.The
Argentinemilitarygovernmentpersistedinremaining“neutral”intheirpolitical
alignmentswithembattledEurope.ForBorgesandhisintellectualcirclethispositionwas
anythingbutneutral.
Oneweeklater,onDecember14,LaNacionwasdetailingtheJapaneseattackonPearl
Harbor,op-edsweredebatingtheeffectthiswouldhaveonthewarinthePacific,anda
correspondentfromStockholmexplainedtheReich—havingfailedtodividebetween
BritainandtheU.S.—was“nowplacinggreathopeinthepossibilityofprovokingadivision
betweentheAlliesandthecountriesofLatinAmerica.”8Onthesesamepages,Borges
publishedaresponsetoMondolfo’sarticle.
“Ireturneternallytothe[ideaofeternalrecurrence],”9Borgesbeginshisarticletonguein
cheek.Yetweshouldnotconfusehisplayfulnessforalackofdeliberation.Thisjocular
statementdrawsthereaderawayfromBorges’intentiontoentirelyignoreanymentionof
“thewilltopower”inwhathepresentsasfurtherreflectiononMondolfo’sarticle.10This
disregardwillbecomeoppositionalintheclosingparagraph,whereBorgesimpliesan
equationofHitlerwithawilltopowerthatthreatenstoimpoverishhumanity.Beforethat,
however,Borgesgoesontodefinethe“threefundamentalmodes”ofeternalrecurrence.
Thethreemodesare:the“astrologicalmode,”whichimpliesthequestionofdeterminism;
8"PreocupaEnElReichLaActitudDeAmericaDelSur,"LaNacion,Dec.14,1941.9JorgeLuisBorges,"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso,"LaNación,Dec.14,1941.10Thisessaywasreprintedas"ElTiempoCircular"inthesecondedition(1953)ofHistoriadelaEternidad.See:Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,393-96;ibid.ThefirstsentenceofBorges’articlecontainstheonlyexplicitreferencetoMondolfo’sarticleandwaseditedoutof"ElTiempoCircular."
217
the“geometricalmode,”whichleadsthroughacombinatorialquestiontothepossibilities
ofaestheticformation;andthe“analogicalmode,”whichquestionstherelationofsuch
combinatorialpossibilitiestothehumanexperience.
FollowingMondolfo’sargumentthatan“absoluteincompatibility”existsbetweeneternal
recurrenceandthewilltopower,Borgeswillformulatethisincompatibilityintermsofa
rejectionoftheverypossibilityofhistoricalprogress.Andhewill,finally,presentthis
impossibilityinanoptimisticnoteasitrelatestoWorldWarII.Inthisarticle,Borges
combinesthe“threefundamentalmodes[ofeternalrecurrence]”intoanarticulationofhis
ideaofHistoriaUniversal.Fromhisexplanationoftheveryfirstmode,theastrologicalone,
Borgesusesthisphrase.Ifastrologicalpatternsreflecthumanhistory,thenthefactthatthe
motionofthestarsrepeatsitselfwouldmeanthathumanhistoryrepeatsitselfaswell.“If
theplanetaryorbitsarecyclical,thehistoriauniversalshouldbeaswell,”11hestates.Borges
clearlyhasaneternalrecurrenceofhistoryinmindherebut,beforewecanmakesenseof
Borges’responsetoMondolfo,weneedtoaskwhatexactlythephrase“historiauniversal”
meanstohim.
ThephrasehistoriauniversalmaybefamiliarfromtitlessuchasBorges’1935bookHistoria
UniversaldelaInfamia.However,Borgeshad(only)alreadyemployedthisphrasethree
timesbefore;inhis1932review“Vindicaciónde‘BouvardetPécuchet;’”12inhis1935
collectionHistoriaUniversaldelaInfamia;13andintwoessaysofhis1936collection
11Borges,"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso."12In:Borges,Discusión.See:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,259-62;ibid.13HistoriaUniversalDeLaInfamia.Wewilldiscussthecontentofthiscollectioninthenextchapter.
218
HistoriadelaEternidad.14Borges’useofthisphraseisquitedeliberateinresponseto
Mondolfo.Moreover,thisarticleisthemostcomprehensivearticulationofhistoria
universalasanideaoftemporalitythatisopposedtoprogressivehistory,andthatwill
informmuchofBorges’futurework.Reviewingthethreeprevioususesofthephrase
alongsidethe“threefundamentalmodes[ofeternalrecurrence]”willclarifyBorges’
responsetoMondolfo.
“ThetimeofBouvardetPécuchetbendstowardeternity,”15statesBorgesinhisreviewof
Flaubert’sunfinishedworkbythatname.
Inordertoridiculethedesiresofhumanity,Swiftattributedthemtopigmies
orapes;Flaubert,totwogrotesquesubjects.Evidently,ifthehistoria
universalisthehistoryofBouvardandofPécuchet,everythingitintegrates
isridiculousandappalling.16
Inthisfirstuseoftheterm,historiauniversalindicatesthestandardmeaningwemight
translateas“historyoftheworld,”or“worldhistory.”Itdoesnotsuggestanyeternal
recurrence.Yetwemayidentifybasicelementsofitslateruseintwoimplications.First,it
impliessomeformofidentitybetweenthenarrativesofBouvard,Pécuchet,apesand
pigmies.Second,itimpliesthatworldhistoryisinsomesenseare-integrationofthese
ridiculousandappallingconstantsthatarehumandesires.WhileFlaubertisnorecurrence
ofSwift,thetemporalitythattheirintegrationinvolvesproceedsfromBouvardetPécuchet
onwards,asit“bendstowardsinfinity.”Buthowcould“historiauniversal”asworldhistory
14HistoriaDeLaEternidad(BuenosAires:[F.a.Colombo],1936).15ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,262.16Ibid.
219
alsobetheparticular“historyofBouvardandofPécuchet?”17Borges’firstuseoftheterm,
then,involvestheproblemofreconcilinguniversalandparticularhistory.Thisisthefirst
problematicofhistorythateternalrecurrencewillhelpBorgesresolve.
InherbookReadingBorgesafterBenjamin,KateJenckesdiscussesthesecondappearance
ofthetermhistoriauniversal,asshereadsBorges’discomfortwiththenotionofa
progressivehistory.18Thisdiscomfortisevident,sheargues,inhisattitudetowards
allegory—atropethatheunderstoodas“aformofwritinghistory.”19Sheproposestoread
Borges’1935collectionHistoriaUniversaldelaInfamiaasacritiqueofallegoryandits
modeofnarratinghistory.Thisbook,Jenckesargues,is“abookabouthistoryitself[…]
parodicallyandparadoxicallytellingahistorythatbyitsverynaturecannotbetold,thatis
infame.”20Thatis,Jenckesexplains,Historyisanameforthenarrativeofthevictors,and
allegoryisthecentraltropeofthisnarrative.21Asanarrativemodethen,historiauniversal
isthealternativeto“worldhistory”inthatitnarrateswhatHistorydoesnot.Inhis
responsetoMondolfo,Borgespositstheanalogicalmodeofnarratingahistoriauniversalas
opposedtotheallegoricalmodeofnarratingHistory.
Jenckeshighlightsthisterminologicaloppositionfoundmostclearlyinalatertext,“The
17Ibid.18Ibid.19KateJenckes,ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory,SunySeriesinLatinAmericanandIberianThoughtandCulture(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2007).CertainlyBorgesisnotthefirsttomakethisconnection.AsthetitleofJenckes’bookclearlystates,sheisinfluencedbyWalterBenjamin’swritingonallegoryandhistory.20Ibid.,68.[Emphasisintheoriginal–YL]21Asthetitleofherbooksuggests,JenckesisbasingherargumentonWalterBenjamin’scritiqueofhistoryasthehistoryofthevictors.ThisisnottheplacetoexpandonBenjamin’sidea.
220
ShameofHistory,”whichappearedinBorges’1952collectionOtrasInqiziciones.22Borges
quotesastatementmadebyGoethe,accompanyingtheDukeofWeimaronamilitary
campaigntoParisin1792:“Inthisplaceandonthisday,anepochinthehistoryofthe
worldisopened.”23TowhichBorgesresponds:“Sincethatday,historicdayshave
abounded,andoneofthetasksofgovernments[…],hasbeentofabricateorsimulatethem
[…]Ihavesuspected[Borgescontinues]thathistory,truehistory,ismorebashfulandthat
itsessentialdatescanbe,foralongtime,secret.”24InoppositiontosomethinglikeGoethe’s
WorldHistory,Borgespositsanotherhistory,more“true”andmore“secret,”anhistoria
universal.
Inthesecond“fundamentalmode”Borgesrefersto—thegeometricalmode—hereplaces
thequestionofidentifyingworldhistoricalmoments.Sinceafinitesetofobjectsis
incapableofinfinitecombinations,noamountofchangeorprogresscanbreakfreeofthe
repetitivenatureofhistory.Ifhistoryisnomorethantherecurrenceofastorywithina
determinedsetofparameters,ifitisnomorethanthealgebraiccombinationofthese
parameters,thenratherthanidentifyingtheprogressionofitsmoments,(afterall,“its
essentialdatescanbe,foralongtime,secret,”25Borgestellsus)theessentialquestion
becomestoidentifythesefiniteconstants.ForBorgestheconstantistheeternalhumanat
thecenterofthefleetingpresent.26
22In:Jenckes,ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory,68.See:Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,631-775.23Quotedandtranslatedin:ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,631-775.24Quotedandtranslatedin:Jenckes,ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory,107.TheSpanishtermJenckestranslatesas“historyoftheworld”is“historiadelmundo.”25Quotedandtranslatedin:ibid.26BorgesbrieflyconsidersLeBon’s“atoms”andNietzsche’s“forces,”beforechoosingAugusteBlanqui’s“simplebodies”astheeternalconstant.Heofferslittleinformationonthesethinkersorthetermstheyoffer.
221
Thechangesinthemeaningofhistoriauniversalfrom1932to1935haveleadfromhistory
tonarrative.InBorges’1936essay“HistoriadelaEternidad”hecomestore-anchorthe
terminhumanexperience,linking(asBosteelshassuggested27)thequestionofidentity
withthisformoftemporality.“Itisknownthatpersonalidentityresidesinthememoryand
thatannullingthatfacultycomportsidiocy,”28statesBorges,anticipatinghis1941closing
commentsonthehumanimpoverishmentthatisHitler.“Thesamemustbethoughtofthe
universe[…]Withoutadelicateandsecretmirrorofwhathashappenedtosouls,the
historiauniversalislosttime.”29Whatfuelsthetemporalityofhistoriauniversalisasecret
mirroring,inwhichsoulsacquiretheiridentitythroughtheirreflectioninsomeother
memoryoftheuniverse.
Thisleadstotheanalogicalmode,thethirdandfinalinBorges’1941essay,whichhe
describesas“cyclesthataresimilar,notidentical.”30Thismodeisformulatedthrough“two
curiousideas.Thefirst:negatetherealityofthepastandofthefuture[…]Thesecond:
negate,likeEcclesiastes,anykindofnovelty.”31Wherewouldsuchnegationsleaveus?“The
conjecturethatallhumanexperienceis(insomeway)analogousmightatfirstsightappear
tobeamereimpoverishmentoftheworld”,Borgesadmits,sinceitwouldsuggest“historia
universalisthatofasingleman.”32Wecaneasilyidentifyinthispropositionthenarrative
HedoesrefertohislongerandmoreindepthdiscussionofNietzsche’s“forces”in:“LaDoctrinadelosSiglos.”In:Borges,HistoriaDeLaEternidad.27Bosteels,"AfterBorges:LiteraryCriticismandCriticalTheory,"193.28Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,364.29Ibid.30Borges,"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso."31Ibid.32Ibid.
222
techniqueBorgesreturnstoagainandagain,inwhichmultiplecharactersorplotlinesturn
outtobethesame,orofanoverdeterminedanalogytooneanother.Ifhistoriauniversalis
therepeatingtaleofoneman,thecentripetalforceofwhichwemightcallanalogy,thenit
becomesclearthatbeyondBorges’essaysandphilosophicaldiscussions,wemustsearch
foritinhisnarrativeformulations.
Yetwhatisoftheessencehereisnotmerelytherepetitionofthetale,butthefirm
anchoringofhumanexperienceatthecenterofthehistoriauniversal.“Inclimactictimes,”
Borgesconcludes,“theconjecturethattheexistenceofmanisconstantandinvariable
mightsaddenorirritate;intimesofdecline(suchasthese),itisthepromisethatno
dishonor,nocalamity,noHitler,willeverimpoverishus.”33Thestoryofoneman,whichis
thatofmanymen,istheassuringechoofafuturerecurrence.Whatis“promising”about
historiauniversalisthatitprovidesameansbywhichtoresistthetotalizingeffortsofa
progressivehistory.Theslippagebetweenhistoryandfiction,whichbecame“analogy”as
theessaycontinued,iswhatpositionsthenarratorattheheartofthemostcentral
questionsofidentity.
Howthencanweunderstandhistoriauniversalasaformofnarration?InSpanish“historia”
meansboth“history”and“story”or“tale.”Thedoublemeaningof“historia”iskeyto
recognizingtheslippageinBorges’articlefromthephilosophicalquestiontotheaesthetic
operation.Aswehaveseen,Borgesmovesfromtheastrologicalrecurrencesofeventsto
theanalogicalrecurrenceofhumanexperience.Innarrativeterms,thisisamovefromthe
33Ibid.
223
historicalaccountofatemporalstringofprogressingmoments,toananalogicalstringof
identicalhumanexperiences.Iproposetoreadhistoria,then,asarecurringstory-history
whoseconstitutivemomentsandexperiencesarealwaysanalogoustoeachother.
However,asJenckeshasobserved,forBorges“history[…]issomethingsecret”34(and
Borgeshasindeedstatedthisseveraltimes:“itsessentialdates[…]secret,”35“adelicate
andsecretmirror,”36).Whatdoesitmeantosaythishistoryisuniversal?Thatis,tosaythat
asecretisuniversal?Likehistoria,thereisanambiguitytothiswordaswell.The
ambiguousmeaningofuniversalisbetweensomethingcommontoall,andsomething
commontoallwithinaparticulargroup.Callinghistoria“universal”perpetuallyposesthe
question:whosestory-historyisit?Asarecurringstory-historythatisbothalways
analogouslyidentical,andincessantlyasking:identicaltowhom?–historiauniversal
constantlyprobestheouterlimitsofinclusion;or,recallingBorges’representationofthe
Judaic—themargin.
AsaresponsetoMondolfo,asacommentonNaziideologyofprogressinhistimeandas
therepeatingstoryof“asingleman,”37Borges’useofhistoriauniversalinthisessayframes
itastheliteraryformulationofhisconcernswithprogressivehistoryandWorldWarII
ideologies.ThechallengeBorgesisleftwithisharsh:withinthishistoriauniversaltowhich
allmenbelong,ofwhichallmenareanalogousechoes,howmightwenonetheless
34Ibid.35Quotedandtranslatedin:Jenckes,ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory,107.36Borges,ObrasCompletas,1923-1972,364.37Borges,"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso."
224
distinguishBorgesfromHitler,ArgentinafromGermany?Howmightweidentifytheedge
thatseparatestheoneinthefaceofthemany(orvisaversa)?
Inanattempttoanswerthisquestion,wemustkeepinmindthatthedistinguishing
thresholdswillreceivearadicallyde-territorializedarticulation.Thatis,thatgeography
haslittletodowiththemannerinwhichthenarrativeofBorges’historiauniversalwill
narratethemargin.“Allegoryofcoursecomesfromallos-agorein,speakingotherthan
publicly,”38Jenckesremindsus.Aspartofanattempttothinkpastallegoricalnarration,
thisalterityto“thepublic”willcometoreplacespatialidentifications—likeitdoesin
Veblen’saccountofthewayfarer,andinR.Nachman’saccountoftheVacantSpace—asa
keyquestionforthenarrativesubjectswewillencounterinthestories.Aswewillsee,
temporalityandsecrecywillproveessentialattributesthroughwhichthemargin
distinguishesitselfvis-à-visthepublic.
TemporalThresholds
“TheprecisegeographyoftheeventsIamgoingtorelateisoflittleimportance,”39states
Dewey,theinternalnarratorofBorges’story“TheManontheThreshold.”Apuzzling
statement,consideringBorgeshaschosentosetthisstoryinruralIndia,whereDeweywill
gosearchingforamissingcolonialjudgeintheinterwarperiod.Then,afterdiscountinghis
owncreatedgeography,hegoesontowonder:“besides,whatwouldthenamesofAmritsar
38Jenckes,ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory,78.39Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,85.
225
orOudhmeaninBuenosAires?”40WhatwouldtheymeaninastorytoldbyaBritish
consularofficialabouthisassignmentinIndiabetweenthetwoworldwars?Ifthiswere
notarhetoricalquestionwemightanswer:theywouldmeanBorges’attempttostylizehis
ownArgentinemarginality.Theywouldmeanthisstorywillexplorethenon-geographical
relationsofanEmpireanditsoutskirts.
Geographyisnotthemaintermthroughwhichthemarginislocated.Yetthetermsthat
framethenarrativearegeographical—thetensionbetweenthe“centralgovernment”ofthe
Empireandtheunnamedcitiesoverwhichitrules.“Letmejustsay,then,[Dewey
continues]thatinthoseyearsthereweredisturbancesinaMuslimcityandthatthecentral
governmentsentoutoneoftheirbestpeopletorestoreorder.”41Deweyisnotignorantof
thedisturbance,butheidentifiesitaspropertothat“Muslimcity”ratherthanproperto
therelationbetweencolonizerandcolonized.AsDanielBalderstonobserves,“Deweyis
distracted[…]byhisassumptionthatIndiaisaland[…]wherepoliticshasnoplace.”42The
doubleentendreofBalderston’sobservationwillturnouttobetrueinbothsenses.Dewey
willlearnthereisarathereffectivepoliticsthatisatworkinthisnarrative.And,thatthis
politicshasno“place,”inthepropersenseoftheword.ThepoliticsDeweycomesup
againstdonotproceedfromthedivisionsageografíauniversal—assomeformofworld
atlas—imposesuponthe“place”calledIndia.43ItwillproceedratherfromDewey’s
encounterwiththemanonthethresholdandhisnarrationofahistoriauniversal.But,40Ibid.,85-86.41Ibid.,86.42DanielBalderston,OutofContext:HistoricalReferenceandtheRepresentationofRealityinBorges(Durham[N.C.]:DukeUniversityPress,1993),103.43WeshouldkeepinmindthatwhilethenarrativetimeofDewey’staleisintheinterwarperiod,theframestory(andthetextitself)datesfrom1952,soonafterthedivisionofBritishIndiaintothenation-statesofIndiaandPakistan.
226
whilethemanonthethresholdmaynarratesuchahistoriauniversal,itisonlythroughhis
encounterwithDeweythatBorges’storycomestonegotiatethequestion“whosehistoriais
this?”And,itisonlythroughitssuccessfulnegotiationthattheoldmancomestomarkthe
non-spatialthreshold,anditsopeningintoamargintowhichDeweyhasnoaccess.
[Spain,Persia,Babylon]
R.Nachman’staletoobeginswithanexposition,inwhichanon-spatialedgeisencountered.
Anedgetowhichthecentralpowerhasnoaccess:
Thereoncewasakingwhodecreedexpulsionorconversion,whoever
wantedtostayinthecountryhadtoconvert,otherwisehewillbeexpelled
fromthecountry.Somelefteverythingbehindandleftinpovertytomaintain
theirfaithasIsraelites,andsomewereconcernedfortheirpossessionsand
remainedasMarranos.InTsinan’44theypracticedJewishreligionandin
publictheywerenotallowed.Thenthekingdiedandhissonbecameking.45
Whatexactlyisthekingtryingtoaccomplishbythisexpulsion?And,doesthecreationofa
Jewishcommunityoutsideofthepublicsphereindicatethathisattempthasfailedor
backfired?Wearegivennomotivationfortheking’sdecree.Infact,thebrisknessandlack
ofdetailwithwhichthisopeningsceneisrelatedwouldgivetheimpressionthatthisis
merelytheexposition.Thisfirstkingisnotamaincharacterinthestory.Hesetsthestage
44Iwillreturntothiswordlaterinthediscussion—YL45Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,20b.Unlessotherwiseindicated,thetranslationsofRabbiNachman’stextsaremyown.IhaveconsultedthefineworkoftranslationdonebyMarianneSchleicher.Whilemyownrenderingisfairlysimilartohers,IhavemaintainedthosedifferencesIbelievearesignificant.Ithereforedonotmakenoteofeverydifferencebetweenourtranslations.Thereaderisinvitedtoconsultherworkin:Schleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot.
227
forthetaletobegin.Weshouldthusaskinwhatwaythisscenehasinfactexposedthe
narrativeworldwithinwhichthetalewilltakeplace.Particularlyconsideringthis
expositionisofamomentofconcealment.
ThefirstthingtonoticeabouttheexpositionisitsechooftheSpanishExpulsion.Notonly
inthemostbasicfactofakinggivingJewsthechoicetoconvertofleave,butalsointhe
nameitgivestheJewswhoremaininthekingdom;anusim.46Yetthenameofthecountryis
nevermentioned.Theprecisegeographyoftheseeventsseemsoflittleimportance.Besides
(toborrowDewey’swords)whatwouldthenamesofAragonandCastilemeaninBraslav?
Theechoofthesenamesintheexpositionsetsthescene—forR.Nachman’slisteners,
familiarwiththishistoricalevent—forthedeparturefromtraditionalaccountsofthe
Expulsion,thatwilltakeplaceinthenextscene.Thatis,thisexpositioncouldbereadalong
thelinesofahistorybook,onethatwillrecounttheprogressmadefromsomeoriginary
momenttothelisteners’present.ThehistoricalknowledgeandnarrativeexpectationsR.
Nachmanispriminginhisreaders,throughtheechooftheExpulsion,servetoidentifythe
SpanishExpulsionastheveryoriginarymomentofmodernJewishhistory.Thiswouldbe
nothingnewtoonefamiliarwiththetraditionalhistoricalnarrative.Thedeparturewill
thusaffectthissenseoffamiliarityaswell.
46Ihavetranslatedthistermas“Marranos.”TheHebrewword“anusim”couldbetranslatedasNewChristiansorConversosaswell.However,basedonthedepictionofthisgroupinthestory,theirhiddenpracticesofJudaismandconcernforrepealingthe“decree,”R.Nachman’suseofthetermpointstoMarranos.Formoreonthedifferencesbetweenthesegroups,see:YirmiyahuYovel,TheOtherWithin:TheMarranos:SplitIdentityandEmergingModernity(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2009).
228
Whatisit,then,thatR.Nachman’saudienceexpectedtohearoftheSpanishExpulsion?
First,theSpanishExpulsionwasawatershedmomentforSpanishJewsandEuropean
Jewrymorebroadly.47Second,LurianicCabaladevelopsoutofthismomentandis,as
GershomScholemargues,themajortrendofJewishmysticismuptotheHasidicmovement.
YosefDanarguesthat,inliterarystructuralterms,LurianicCabalaalsobecomesthemajor
mythicaluniversewithinwhichSabbatianand(later)Hasidicstorytellingtakesplace.48
Thistrendmarkstheconcernsoftheexpelledcommunitiesandthesignificanceofthis
eventforthoseJewswho,asR.Nachmanputsit,“maintaintheirfaithasIsraelites.”49
InterestinthoseJewswhochosetoremaininSpain,asanusim,isamarkedcharacteristic
oftheSabbatianmovement.50
Itisallthemoresurprisingtofindinthenextscene,thatofthesecondking’slifeandrule,
thatthetaleisconcernednotwiththeeffectsoftheexpulsiononthelivesoftheexpelled,
butwillinvestigateratherthelivesoftheanusimwhoremaininthecountry.Thisdoesnot
becomeevidentuntilthesecondkingcomesonstage.Theexpositionisallthemore
effectiveinsettinguptheworldofthetaleasadeparturefromtraditionalnarrativesofthe
Expulsion.Sinceitgivesnoindicationofthetale’sconcern,thefirstsceneenablesthetale
47Amongthoserelevanttooursubjectmattersee:Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism.And:Buber,Hasidism.Aswellas:Dan,Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.48See:Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi.49Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,20b.50See:“RedemptionThroughSin.”In:Scholem,TheMessianicIdeainJudaismandOtherEssaysonJewishSpirituality,78-141.And:SabbataiSevi;theMysticalMessiah,1626-1676(Princeton,N.J:PrincetonUniversityPress,1973).
229
topositiontheSpanishExpulsionalongatemporalitydissociatedfromtheJewishhistoryR.
Nachman’slistenerswerefamiliarwith.51
Withthedeparture,theexpositionalsointroducesthethemeofJewishencounterswith,
andexistencewithin,ahomogenizingbroaderculture.ForR.Nachmanthisthemeis
framedintermsofNapoleonicemancipationandTzaristreforms.However,his
representationofthisthemethroughanechooftheExpulsion—and,moreimportantly,
focusingonthoseJewsthatchosetobecomeanusim—linksthenarrativerepresentationof
suchencounterstothesocialandpoliticalrootsofthequestionofequalityinmodern
JewishEuropeanhistory.HavingsetuparetrospectiveconnectionbetweenR.Nachman’s
ownconcernsandtheSpanishExpulsion,thetaleproceedsthroughahistoriauniversalof
justsuchencounters.
Inthesecondsceneweareintroducedtothemaincharacterofthetale,amarranominister
inthecourtoftheking.Thesecondscenewilltracethisrecurrencebacktothecharacterof
MordechaifromthebiblicalBookofEster.Therewasaplotintheking’scourt,thetale
relates.Someministersconspiredtokilltheking.Theminister,whoseJudaisminunknown
tothekingandcourt,warnstheking.Havingsurvivedtheassassinationattemptand
capturedtheconspirators,thekingrewardstheministerpublicly.
51Thatis,unlessonebelievesR.NachmanwashimselfaSabbatian.WhileinfluencesofSabbatianandFrankistthoughtareevidentinR.Nachman,noargumenthasbeenmadethathehimselfbelongedtothesemovements,orengagedwiththeminanywayotherthantoclarifyhisownpositionincontra-distinction.FormoreonR.Nachman’sengagementwithSabbatianandFrankistideassee:JosephWeiss,"ToratHa-DialektikaVe-Ha-EmunaLe-RabbiNachmanMi-Braslav"(HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,1951),Chapter3.And:ZadoffandMeir,"TheEmptySpace,SabbateanismandItsMelodies-JosephWeiss'ReadingofLiqquteiMoharan64."
230
Whentheministerfirstconsiderswhathisresponseshouldbetolearningoftheconspiracy,
hisinternalvoiceisrelated:“Well,whyamIamarrano?BecauseIwishedtosparemy
fortuneandpossessions.Nowthatthecountrywillbewithoutakingitwillbethatman
willswallowhisneighboralive,fortherecannotbeacountrywithnoking.”52Weshould
focusforamomentontheminister’slogic.Inparticular,thequestionhereis;whatexactly
doestheministerfearwouldhappentoacountrythatirrecoverably(thepossibilityofthe
king’ssonassumingthethrowndoenotseemtooccurtohim)lostitsking?Whatmakes
thekingsuchanindispensiblefigure?Thisquestionisaskedwithregardtoboththe
minister’sinternallogicandtheinternallogicofthetaleitself.Iwillsuggestseveral
answers.
First,asadepictionofthecharacter’sinternallogicandmotivation,theperceived
indispensabilityofthekingisanimportantdetailsincethetaleisultimatelyalsoataleof
howtheministerlearnshewaswrongtothinkthis,howhecomestorealizethepossibility
ofaking-lesscountry.Asthemaincharacterofthetale,theconflicthewillovercomeishis
fearofthiskinglessreality,andtheanarchysuchaprospectsuggeststohim.Thisfear
promptedhimtoremaininthecountryandlatertoexposetheplotagainsttheking.Itis
thelogicbywhichheoperates.ThislogicisfurtheremphasizedbythefactthatR.Nachman
alludeshereto(PirkeiAvot3:2):“RabbiHanina,deputytothePriests,wouldsay:Prayfor
thewellbeingoftherulership,forwereitnotforthefearofit,amanwouldswallowhis
neighboralive.”Thisallusionbothservestomarkthedilemmatheministerwillhaveto
52Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,21a.
231
overcome,andtheovercomingofoutdatedmodesofthoughtabouttherelationbetween
Jewsandsovereignty.
Second,asanechoofR.Nachman’sownpost-Frenchrevolutionaryworld,theminister’s
lessonisalsohisown,forithasaffirmedthepossibilityofakinglesscountry.Whatis
involvedincomingtotermswiththisaffirmationisreconcilingnewformsofrepublicanism
andimperialismwithtraditionalthoughtonsovereignty(suchastheglossonPirkeiAvot)
andexistingstructuresofengagement(suchastherecentmemoryoftheCouncilofFour
Lands),throughwhichJewscomeintocontactwiththebroaderculture,withitsshifting
conceptionsofhomogeneityandequality.Inthatsense,fortheministertobeproven
wrongisforthetaletoaffirmthepossibilityofsuchreconciliation.
Third,asthemaincharacterslipsfromtheSpaintothePersiansettingoftheBookofEster
and(inthenextscene)fromPersiatotheBabyloniansettingoftheBookofDaniel,the
recurrenceofanarrativeofencountersbetweentheministerandthekingsetsupan
analogousrelationbetweenthesetraditionalreferencesR.Nachmanweavestogetherinhis
tale.Thekingsdieandarereplaced,buttheministerneverdies.Heistherecurring
characterofthisstory.Whatbecomesclearfromthelaconicreportsofthekings’death—
andindeath’sformalfunctionwithinthenarrativetime—isthatthekingmarksarather
standardhistoricalgenealogyofroyallineage.“Death[…]constitutestheoneendofthe
divineinclusionofhistory,”53proposesSchleicher,recurrencewouldconstitutetheother.
53Schleicher,IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaCloseReadingofSippureyMaasiyot,220.
232
Thekings’deathandtheminister’srecurrencemarkanencounterbetweenthetwomodes
oftemporalityweoutlinedearlier;progressivehistoryandhistoriauniversal.
Asthetaleadvancestowardsprovingtheministerwrong,towardsaffirmingthepossibility
ofreconciliationbetweentheJewandhissurroundingculture,itsimultaneouslyadvances
towardsitsownendandtheimpossibilityofreconcilingthesetwotemporalmodes.Will
thedeathofthelast(fourth)kingmarktheendoftheminister’sexistenceasthemain
characterofanhistoriauniversal?Whatrecurrencewillbepossiblewhenthestructural
markerofrecurrence—theking—isgone?Doesakinglesscountryintroduce,asBorges
feared,“inplaceofalwaysidenticalforces,acontinuousaugmentation”54thatwouldbreak
opentheperceivedcontinuityofJewishculture?
Thenarrativebreaksbetweenonekingandanother—introducingepistemologicalgaps
betweenthem,asbetweenthereaderandthelogicofsovereigntyeachkingreveals—
repeatedlystylizetheminister’sencounterswiththeedge.Thetale’sreconciliationofits
twotemporalities,thepoeticstylizationofaspacebeyondtheedgeofmonarchy,would
alsobetheopeningofanarrativespaceintowhichtheministercancross.
[ADimRumor]
Thereisacertainrepetitionofthisdynasticframeworkanditsepistemologicalgapsin
Borges’story.“DavidAlexanderGlencairniswhathe’llbecalledinmyhistoriatonight,”55
54Mondolfo,"LaContradiccionDeNietzsche."55Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,86.IleavethewordhistoriatoemphasizeDewey’schoiceofwords.
233
Deweyintroducesthejudgethathasgonemissing.“Thenamesarefitting,”heexplains,
“sincetheybelongedtokingswhoruledwithanironscepter.”56Thisstringofnameslays
outDewey’sown(ratherstandard)self-identifiedgenealogy:Biblical,Greco-Romanand
finallyBritishhistory.Butitdoesmore.ItlaysoutthetemporalityDeweywillrepresentin
thistale.DavidAlexanderGlencairn,whobearsthenamesofhispredecessors,isthefourth
andfinalofthisdynasty.Hisdeath,likethedeathofR.Nachman’sfourthking,willmarkthe
finaleventofthenarrative.Butmoretothepoint,Glencairn’sdeathmarksthemoment,in
whichthefullforceoftherecurringstory-historycomesintoview.Fornow,sufficeitto
notethediachronicnatureofthishistoricallycompoundednameDeweyisinsearchof:
DavidAlexanderGlencairn.
Dewey’ssearchwillultimatelyleadtohisencounterwithan“oldmansquattedonthe
threshold.”57Liketheencounterbetweenthekingandtheminister,thisencountertoo
playsoutintheoppositionbetweenprogressivehistoryandhistoriauniversal.“Thisold
manforwhomthepresentwashardlyadimrumor,”58Deweyrecountshisfirst
impressionsoftheman.Heisstillthinkingintermsofhistoricalprogression.Inherown
readingofthisstory,Jenckesnotesthemanonthethreshold“occupiesamarginalposition
vis-à-vistherestofsociety.”59Whatthispositionmarksispreciselythepoint—orrather
themoment—ofencounterbetweenthesetwotemporalities.However,whereasR.
Nachman’sreaderistakenthroughaseriesofencountersthatostensiblyformtheprocess
56Ibid.57Ibid.,87.58Ibid.59KateJenckes,"BorgesbeforetheLaw,"inThinkingwithBorges,ed.WilliamEggintonandDavidE.Johnson(Aurora,Colo.:DaviesGroupPublishers,2009),149.
234
ofcarvingoutthesetwotemporalities,Borges’readerisledtothesingleandclimactic
momentoftheirfullopposition.
Theministerundergoesaprocessofrecognizingtheerroneousassumptionatthebaseof
hisfearofanarchy,whichisfinalizedonlywiththedeathofthefourthking.Inthenarrative
recurrencethattheoldmanspinsforDewey,thispossibilityisalreadyreconciledinthe
disappearanceofapreviousjudge.TheoldmanwilltellDeweyastoryfromhischildhood
aboutacolonialjudgegonemissing.Thisjudge’sarrivalwasacheerfuleventforthepeople
ofthetown,“fortheyfeltthatlawwasbetterthandisorder.”60Veryquickly,however,they
changetheirminds,admittingthat“hiskinshipwithalleviljudgestheworldoverwastoo
obvious.”61Thekidnappingofthefirstjudgemarksthemoment,inwhich“thousandsof
SikhsandMuslims”62overcomenotmerelytheirfearoflawlessness,butthedichotomy
betweenlawanddisorderthathasstructuredtheirperceptionofthe“centralgovernment.”
Inthisovercoming,theyalsoovercomewhateverstrifeDeweyhadperceivedasproperto
theirreligion.Dewey’sperception,Balderstonnotes,isstylizedbyhisrepeateddesignation
ofthelimitsofhisownlocalknowledgeas“Muslim.”63Thetownspeopletakepublicaction
againstthejudgeand“avengethemselvesforthefalsehopestheyhadonceplacedin
him.”64
60Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,88.61Ibid.62Ibid.63See:Balderston,OutofContext:HistoricalReferenceandtheRepresentationofRealityinBorges,98-114.64Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,88.
235
WehavenowreachedtheheartoftheconcentricframetalesofBorges’story.Letustakea
momenttonotethem,beforediscussingthemannerinwhichthenarrativemovesinand
outoftheseframes.ThefirstframeisthatinwhichBorgesnarratesanencounterwithhis
BritishfriendDeweyin1952BuenosAires.WithinthisencounterDeweytellsastoryofhis
interwarserviceinIndia,inwhichhemeetstheoldmanonthethreshold.Thisoldman,in
turn,tellsDeweyataleofhisownchildhood,whichdatestothe1857IndianUprising.The
narrativeprogressionbackwardsfrom1952to1857setsupthechainofhistorical
momentsthattheendofthestorywillpullintoananalogousidentity.
R.Nachman’stalehasmanagedtospinthehistoriauniversalfromBabylon,viaPersiaand
Spain,uptothePaleofSettlementin1807(theyearhetoldthetale)inanattemptto
reconcilethepossibilityofacountrywithnoking.ThechronologyofBorges’storybegins
withthisveryreconciliationasthetownspeopleoftheoldman’sstory“executed—
incredulous—whattoeachofthemhadseemedimpossible.”65Thisreconciliationwillecho,
analogously,inDewey’staleofhistimeinIndia.Theoldman’sstoryturnsouttobe,
simultaneously,thatofGlencairn’sfate.Thepresentisindeed“adimrumor”totheoldman,
butthisturnsouttobefurtherindicationofhismultipletiestoit,andoftheincomparable
temporalbreadthwithinwhichheoperates.WithhisstoryhehasinfactdelayedDeweyat
thethresholdoftheverypointandtime—courtyardandmoment—inwhichGlencairn’s
trialwasplayingout.OnlyafterthestoryistoldwillDeweyrealizeitwasthestoryofhis
ownmissingjudge,andtheinterwarIndianIndependencemovementaswell.Onlywhen
65Ibid.
236
heseesthenakedmadmancrownedwithflowers,bloodyswardinhand,willthethreshold
turnouttobethatofanaltogetherdifferenttemporality.
ThisArabian-Nights-stylenarrativedelaywillprovetobefarmorethanaploytobuytime.
Theoldman’staleendssimultaneouslywiththeendofGlencairn’strial.“Havingsaidthis,
hegotup,”66Deweyreportstheabruptnesswithwhichtheoldmanfinisheshistale.
Dewey’staleendsoneparagraphlaterwiththediscoveryofGlencairn’sbody,andwith
similarabruptness.ThefinallinesareDewey’sfirstpersonaccount:
AttheheartoftheinnermostcourtyardIcameuponanakedman,crowned
withyellowflowers,whomeveryonekissedandcaressed,withaswordinhis
hand.Theswordwasstained,asithaddealtGlencairnhisdeath.Ifoundhis
mutilatedbodyinthestablesoutback.67
The1952frametaleseemsnottoreturnafterthediscoveryofGlencairn’sbodybyDewey.
WheremightwesayBorges’ownframecomestoanend?
RecallBorges’explanationofthethirdfundamentalmodeofeternalrecurrence.Itinvolves
“twocuriousideas.Thefirst:tonegatetherealityofthepastandofthefuture[…]The
second:tonegate,likeEcclesiastes,anyinnovation.”68Thefullconfrontationwiththe
temporalityofhistoriauniversalisnotDewey’s.Itisthereader’s.Andtheconfrontation
thatBorgeshasstructured,involvespreciselythisdoublenegation.Thetalewillnot
proceedintoafuture.Norwilltheforceofanalogousidentityallowthenarrativerefraction
66Ibid.67Ibid.,90.68Borges,"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso."
237
thatwoulddemarcateapast.And,thenegationofanyinnovationisthenegationofany
possibilityoffurthernarration.Inthatsense,Borges’framecannothaveanend,sinceitis
notamomentalongasequenceofchronologybutofanalogy.Thepoeticsofintransitivity,
withwhichtheendingisinflected,isresolvedbythetransitionfromchronologytoanalogy.
Furthermore,whileBorgesiscallingthisa“negation,”itisinfactamodeofrecurrencefull
ofaffirmation.Recurrence,inthissense,isnotthedescriptionofalimitingpresent(or“a
dimrumor,”asDeweycallsit)thatstripsitssubjectsofagency.Itisratherthemaximof
agencyforthosewho,bywayofanalogy,transgressthethresholdintothemargin.
Bothstorieshaveconstructedanarrativetemporalitythatalsocreatesagroup.WhileR.
Nachman’skingsortheBritishcentralgovernmentmaythinkuniversalityintermsofa
commonalitythat“all”share,theministerandthemanonthethresholdremindusthatany
such“all”isstillalwaysan“allwithinaparticulargroup.”And,inbothstories,this
particulargroupisonetowhichthekingandtheBritishcolonialofficialhavenoaccess.On
thispoint,Iwillsuggest,R.Nachman’sstorychartsthecreationofthosenon-spatial
delimitations,withinwhichBorges’storyattemptstoidentifyathreshold.If,however,
consideringthequestion“whosehistoriaisit?”willinfactsuggestsuchdelimitations,itwill,
inevitably,equallysuggesttheobversequestion,“whosehistoriaisitnot?”
TheAppearanceofaSecret
[Scene1]
Let’sreturntoR.Nachman’stale,inwhichtheexpulsionhasstructuredtheinherent
tensionbetweenthe“all”and“allwithin”inthekingdoms’newlyconceivedcommonality.
238
Thefinallinesoftheexpositiondescribetheappearanceofanewgroup,theanusim:“And
somewereconcernedfortheirpossessionsandremainedasanusim.Intsina’they
practicedJewishreligionandinpublictheywerenotallowed.Thenthekingdied.”69
Theendoftheexpositionismarkedbythedeathofthefirstking.Ithaslaidoutthe
narrativeworldwithinwhichthetaleunfolds,andhasmarkedR.Nachman’sinterestin
Jewishexistencewithinanon-Jewishworld.WhatseemstimelytoR.Nachmanaboutthis
narrativeworldisitsstrongcommitmenttosocialhomogeneity.Inhisowntimesthisidea
hadbeencalledsocial“equality”byFrenchrevolutionariesandlegislatedasadresscodein
theStatuteof1804.Atanyrate,thistaleinvestigatestherelationofoneJewtosuchanidea,
atamomentinwhichtheverytermsthatfunctionassocialbordersareshiftingtheir
meaning.
Thecreationofahomogeneous“public”70bythekinghasleadtothecreationoftwosetsof
oppositions,bothofwhichrevolvearoundthepossiblemeaningofthewordtsina’—the
wordR.Nachmanopposesto“public.”Onepossiblemeaningofthewordtsina’would
suggestthetensionpropertothelivesofthemarranosisbetween“public”and“private.”
Anothermeaningofthewordwouldsuggestthetensionisratherbetween“public”and
“secret.”Thenarrativewillproceedalonganattempttostructuretherelationbetween
thesesetsofoppositions:(1)publicvs.private,(2)publicvs.secret.
69Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,20b.70ThewordItranslateas“public”isparrhesia.AGreekwordmeaningfree-speechwhichcomestorepresentthespacethatisopentoeveryone.IthasalongTalmudichistoryinwhichitdenotesthesame,“public.”Formoreonthisterm,see:MordechaiArad,MehalelShabatBe-Farhesya:MunahTalmudiU-Mashma`UtoHa-Historit(NewYork;Yerushalayim:JewishTheologicalSeminary,2009).
239
Thefirstkinghasinadvertently,perhapsunknowingly,createdatensionbetweenthese
twosetsofdichotomies.Hehasexcludedfrom“thepublic”boththeprivateandthesecret.
Forthepurposesoftheexposition,theyareoneandthesame;not-public.Iproposetoread
theminister’sinteractionwiththevariouskingsasaninvestigationofthesedichotomies,
throughwhichR.Nachman’stalewillattempttoanswerthequestion:whichoftheseisthe
tensionpropertothelivesofJewsinanhomogeneouspublic?
[Scene2]
Thesecondkingisasternrulerandaplotformsagainsthiminthecourt.Theminister
hearsofit.Hethendecidestoinformthekingoftheconspiratorsplot“withouttheir
knowledge,”71anditisfoiled.Thesecretplotisreportedinsecrettotheking.Butisthis
secretofthesameorderastheminister’sJudaism?Thesecondkinghasjustlearneda
lessonissecrecy,fortheplotwasindeedsecret,yetbynomeansaprivateaffair.
“WhathonorcanIgiveyouforsavingme?”thekingasks,“saywhatprivilegeyouwould
likeandIwillprovideit.”72Thekingisabouttolearnafurtherlesson,thistimeinprivacy.
Inreturnforpublicizingthesecret,theministerwillnowwishtopublicizetheprivate.“The
principleofmyprivilege”repliestheminister,“isthatImaybeallowedtobeaJewin
public.”73Thekingisdispleasedwiththeminister’swish,yetheisobligatedtograntit.The
71Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,21a.72Ibid.73Ibid.
240
nextdaytheministergoesoutinpublicwearinghistalitandtefilin,74thesymbolsofhis
Jewishfaith.Thenthekingdies.
Thekings’deathhasaformalfunctioninthistale.Itdemarcatestheshiftingrelationsof
privateandsecret.Ifforthefirstking“private”and“secret”areindistinguishable,andboth
opposedto“public,”forthesecondkingtheybecomemutuallyexclusive.Ontheonehand,
theplottokillthekingwassecretbutnotprivate.Ontheotherhand,whiletheminister’s
religionisnolongerasecret,itisnotpublicinthesensethatitisnotpartofthe
homogenizingeffortsoftheking.Thesecondking’srule,then,setsupthetensionbetween
theseelements,notastheyrelatetothepublic,butastheyrelatetoeachother.
[Scene3]
Thethirdkingwasverywise,tellsR.Nachman.Fearingthekindofplotshisfatherhad
survived,hesummonstheastrologersandbidstheypredictwhathemustguardhimself
against,sothathisroyallinenotbeextinguished.Theastrologerstellhim“hisseedwillnot
befelled,justthatheshouldbeguardedfromoxandlamb.”75Thekinghasthischronicled
intheroyalarchives(R.NachmanusestheprecisetermfromthebookofEster,Sefer
HaZichronot)anddies.Thisthirdsceneistheshortestandleastdetailedofthefour.Its
functioninthenarrativeflowistoinserttheriddleofoxandlamb.Theseremain,as
Wiskind-Elperpointsout,“symbolswhosemeaningislefthermeticallysealed.”76
74Prayershawlandphylacteries.75Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,21b.76Wiskind-Elper,TraditionandFantasyintheTalesofRebNahmanofBratslav,156.
241
Thisisindeedarunicwarning.Itrevolvesaroundanotherambiguouswording:to“be
guardedfrom”couldmeanthatthekingmustguardhimselfagainsttheseenigmaticoxand
lamb,oritcouldmeanthatthekingwillbeguardedbytheseoxandlamb.Thekingwalks
onarazor’sedge,asthefutureofhisdynastydependsonthisriddle.Ariddle,infact,that
secrecyandprivacywillcompetetoresolve.Willtheoxandlambguardhimfromdemise
ormustheguardagainstthemtopreventhisdemise?Willthesuccessfulresolutionofthis
riddleensuretheking’ssurvival,orbringabouthisultimateextinction?
[Scene4,part1]
Thisfourthandfinalscenecanbedividedintotwosections.Inthefirst,believinghehas
understoodtheriddle,thefourthkingdecreesthattherebenooxorlambanywhereinhis
country.“Hethereforehasnofearofanything,”77relatesR.Nachman.Thiswillprovetobe
anironicstatement,sinceinthesecondparttheking’serroneousresolutionoftheriddle
willbringhisdynasty,andthetale,toanend.Beforedoingso,however,thefirstpartofthis
scenewillproceedtoinvestigatetherelationof“thepublic”totheideaofsocial
homogeneity.Previouslywehaveanalyzedthistaleintermsofahistoria.Wecomenowto
investigatethelimitsofthe“universal,”towhichsuchahistoriamaybeascribed.
“Andhebecameagreatwisemanandencounteredanartbywhichtoconquertheentire
worldwithoutwar.”78Couldtherebeagreaterexpansionof“thepublic,”alargertotality
than“theentireworld?”Howthenissuchafeatachieved?
77Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,21b.78Ibid.
242
Fortherearesevenpartstotheworld,andsevenplanets,eachofwhich
shinesononepartofthesevenpartsoftheworld,andthereareseventypes
ofmetals,foreachofthesevenplanetsshineswithadifferenttypeofmetal.79
R.Nachman’sknowledgeofastrologyisbesidethepointhere.Whatismorepertinentisthe
fourthking’srecognitionofthecosmogonyheterogeneityoftheuniverse.Andtheart(or
technology)bywhichtheworldisconqueredwithoutwarisentirelydependentonthis
recognition.
Thekingconstructsanidolofamanwhoseorgansarecomprisedofthesevenmetalsthat
representthesevenplanets.Asmentionedearlier,thisimagealludestoNebuchadnezzar’s
dreamintheBookofDaniel.YetinDaniel’sinterpretationthisimagerepresentsthe
fleetingrulershipofNebuchadnezzar’sBabylon,oneoffourkingdomstobesucceeded
before
theGodofheaven[shall]setupakingdom,whichshallneverbedestroyed;
norshallthekingdombelefttoanotherpeople;itshallbreakinpiecesand
consumeall[other]kingdoms,butitshallstandforever.(Daniel2:42)
Akingdomthatbreaksapartintopieces,andyetconsumesallotherkingdomsandstands
foreveristheveryoppositeofourfourthking,whoseattempttosolidifytheworldintoa
singlekingdomwillnotpreventhisultimatedemise.
Howthendoesthisidolfunctionasatechnologyforpeacefulworlddomination?The
variousmetalsofferadvicebyglowingornotglowinginreactiontotheking’squestions.80
79Ibid.
243
Eachmetalcanonlyofferadviceregardingthepartoftheworlditcorrespondsto.Ifthe
constructionoftheidolisanattempttorepresentcosmogonicheterogeneityinthetotality
ofasingleman’simage,itsfunctioningentailstheattempttosolidifythevarietyofhuman
knowledgeinasingleconsciousness.Unlikethefirstking’sattempttodominatethrough
imposingpublichomogeneity,withthisnewtechnologythefourthkingwillattemptto
dominatetheworldthroughrecognitionofitsheterogeneity.Thefirstking’sperceived
overlapoftotalityandhomogeneityisundonebythefourthking.Butwhichofthese,then,
isthe“public”tobeassociatedwith?Isittheinfeasiblehomogeneityofasinglecountry’s
population,ortheequallyimpossibletotalizingofaheterogeneousuniverse?
Tofurthercomplicatetheplot,R.Nachmanexplainsthemechanismoftheidol’s
functioning.“Andthatidolofamanwasnotcapableofallthisexceptonconditionthatthe
kingwouldhumbletheloftyandexaltthelowly.”81Itmaybeastretchtocalltheidol
“technology”anditsfunctionalmechanism“socialrevolution.”However,thedemandto
reshufflesocialhierarchiesandclassesasaconditionofpossibilityfortheimpossible
totalizingoftheworld’sheterogeneitywillfinallypresentitselftothefourthking.Itwill
taketheformofademandtoresolvethelocusoftensionbetweenthemutuallyexclusive
“private”and“secret”ontheonehandand,ontheother,the“public”heissoconcerned
withexpanding.
80ThisalsoalludestotheUrimandTummim,thesemi-preciousstonesthatadornthehighpriest’sbreastplateintheBible,andwhichglowinoracularresponsetoMoses’questions(accordingtoTalmudiclegend).81Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,22a.
244
Tomaintaintheidol’sfunctionalmechanism,thekingbeginstostriphisministersand
generalsoftheirtitles.“Whatisyourprivilege?”82heaskstheminister.“ThatImaybe
allowedtobeaJewinpublic.”83Inordertosatisfytheidol’sfunctionalmechanism,theking
mustreversetheminister’sprivilege.Butwhatisthereverseoftheminister’spublic
privilege?Whatmustthekingtakeawayinordertohumbletheminister,inorderforthe
mechanismofhisowntotalizingeffortstocontinuetofunction?Whichisitsopposite,of
whichthekingmustridtheworld’sheterogeneityinordertoachievetotality:privacyor
secrecy?
Wemayimaginetwopossibilities.First,inanattempttoreversetheminister’spublic
privilegeasaJew,thekingabolishesthesecrecyofJudaism,wherebytheministeris
swallowedupintheheterogeneityofthepublic—aheterogeneitythatincludes“public
Jews”amongmanyothergroups.Or,second,inanattempttoreversetheminister’spublic
privilegeasaJew,thekingreduceshimtothesecrecyofhispreviouslifeasamarrano.If
underthesecondkingtheminister’ssecretwasreleasedfromitsprivaterealm,thefourth
kingwouldthusreducehisprivacytoasecret.Thekingchoosesthelatterandtheminister
“onceagainbecameamarrano.”84Thiswillprovetobeamistake.Theformer,infact,
wouldhavesavedtheking’slineagefromdoom.Theforthkingchoosestooppose“public”
to“private.”Butestablishingthisoppositionofpublicandprivateis,atthesametime,the
establishingof“thesecret”asthatwhichtemporarilybringstoahaltthetotalizingproject,
82Ibid.83Ibid.84Ibid.
245
thatwhichinterferesinthetensecomplementarityofpublicandprivate,disruptingtheir
definitionsofthelimitsofinclusionandexclusion.
AttheSecret’sThreshold
In1804RussianTsarAlexanderIadoptedtheStatuteConcerningtheOrganizationof
Jews.85ThisdocumentaimedtoregulatetheJewishcommunityofthePaleofSettlementby
mandating(amongotherthings)a“secular”curriculuminJewishschoolsandtheforced
urbanizationofmanyJewishcommunities.FortheJewishcommunitythisImperial
impositionwasseenasagzeratshmad—adecreeofconversion,asintheHebrewtitleof
thisverysametalebyR.Nachman.86ThemandatespresentedintheStatuteforcedJewish
leaderstoconfrontextentnotionsofthelimitsofJudaism—geographic,socialandreligious.
Inhisresponsetothisdecree,R.Nachmandevelopsapoliticsofsecrecy.Inpoeticterms,
thisistheproductionofanepistemologicalgap,therepresentationofaspacebeyondthe
limit.Innarrativeterms,thetalewearereadingisstructuredaroundaseriesofsuchgaps
thatarenonethelesstraversedbythenarrative.Thesecretiswhatcirculatesatprecisely
theouterlimitsofinclusion,asitdemarcatesthepossibilityofamarginwithinwhichthe
ministerwillfindhimself.
85Charny,"1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews".86TheHebrewtitlereads:Ma’asehmi-Melechshe-GazarShmad–ataleofakingwhodecreedshmad(i.e.conversion).
246
Thisterribledecreewastheresultofpeopleputtingtheirtrustinrabbisthatarenotfitto
lead,rabbiswho“haveagreatevilinclinationtoruletheworld,”87R.Nachmanbeginshis
commentsontheStatuteof1804.Inhiscriticism,R.Nachmanfocusesonthelinguistic
educationmandatedbytheStatute.Whenwetrustinunfitrabbis,hecomments,“thescript
ofourhandisweakened,andwegiveforcetotheirwriting,andallsentencesmustbeby
[theEmpire’s]writing,as‘ordinancestheyhavenotknown.’”88“Ordinances”(Mishpatim),
couldmeanbothgrammaticalsentencesandjudicialdecrees.Thispunexistsinthe
previouspartofthequoteaswell,whereR.Nachmanplayswiththemeaningofthe
HebrewwordMishpat,whichmeanssentencebothinagrammaticalsenseandajudicial
sense.Theclashofsentences,hesuggests,isbothjudicialandnarrative.Itiscrucialto
insistuponourownsentences,aswritingsandasordinances.FortheEmpire’sordinances,
hecontinues,leadtothedeportationandrelocationofJewsfromtheirsettlements.
Theresultofbadleadershipisnotmerelythesedecrees,R.Nachmanexplains.More
fundamentally,itisthat“our”wisdomistakenfromusanddeliveredto“them.”Thisoccurs
becauseunfitleadersdonotknowhowtobalancebetweenthepublicandthesecret
aspectsofJewishexistence.“Itmakessensethatthesecret[ofourwisdom]remainwith
us,”89hestates.Andyet,wemustrevealto“them”ourwisdom.Thatalsomakessense.“For
thisisyourwisdomandunderstandingintheeyesofthenations”(Deut.4:6),quotesR.
Nachman.Thewisdomistorevealto“theireyes”theexistenceofthesecret,andyetnotto
87Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,61:2.88Ibid.RabbiNachmanquotesherefromProverbs149:20.AnotherpunexistsintheHebrewpluralformofKetav,whichmeansbothscriptandwritings.89Ibid.WhatRabbiNachmanidentifiesasthesecretofJewishwisdomistheknowledgeofastrology.Wewillreturntothisinthesecondpartoftheforthking’sscene.
247
giveawaythesecretitself.“Onlysothattheywillknowthatwehavethesecret,”90he
explains.
QuotingProverbs11:13,R.Nachmanturnsthispeculiaresotericismintoaruleofthumb
foridentifyingtherightleadership.“Hethatgoethaboutasatalebearerrevealethsecrets,
buthethatisofafaithfulspiritconcealethamatter.”Onewhoisnottrustworthywill
revealsecrets,whichistantamounttocancelingthescriptofourhand.Butthewiseman,
therightleader,willobviously“concealethamatter.”Arabbithatpromisestoreveal
secretsisnottobetrustedforhewillsurelydeliver“our”sentenceinto“their”hands.Nor
isonewhoclaimsthereisnosecret,forwisdomisalwaysonly“intheeyesofthenations.”
Theremustbeaconcealment,anditmustbeobvious.Thereisadelicatebalancebetween
revealingandconcealing,throughwhichtherightleadershipwillalwaysmaintain—
perhapsdelay—theEmpire’srepresentativesatthethresholdofthesecret.Nocloser,but
nofarthereither.
[TheOtherPlot]
SpeakingofthethemeofconspiracyinArgentineliterature,RicardoPigliasuggests“itis
aroundthe[ideaofa]complotthat[themajorArgentinewrites]establishtheirnotionof
fiction.Theirtextsnarratetheconstructionofacomplotand,bytellingushowacomplotis
constructed,theynarratehowafictionisconstructed.”91Indeedthemanonthethreshold
ispreciselysuchaliminalfigure,markingthetenuousoverlapinthemechanicsofplotand
complot.Fromhispositioninthecenterofimperialauthority,Deweywillencounterthis90Ibid.,61:3.91RicardoPiglia,"TeoríaDelComplot,"Ramona:revistadeartesvisuales23(2002):4.
248
threshold.Hewillmovefromtheplotofthetale,theimperialbureaucratwanderingthein
searchofajudge(anothercenterofauthority),totheplotthataccompaniesit,thatis,the
complotoftheoldman’stale.
ThiswillbynomeansrelocateDeweyfromhisofficeat“thecentralgovernment”torural
OudhorAmritsar.Itisnotageographicalrelocationwearetrackinginthesetales.What
willcomeintoviewisDewey’spositionvis-à-visthebordersthatdemarcateanedge,and
theopeningofspacebeyond.Thedistributionofthesecretwillbringthisintoview.Upon
arrivinginthetownDeweyreports:
Ifelt,almostatonce,theinvisiblepresenceofaconspiracytokeep
Glencairn’sfatehidden.There’snotasoulinthiscity(Isuspected)whoisnot
inonthesecretandwhoisnotsworntokeepit.92
Thereisonesoulinthecitywhoisnot“inonit,”andthatisDewey.Thepublicsecret,
“whatIalonedonotknow,”istranslatedbyDeweyintoacomplot.“Theideaofacomplot,”
continuesPiglia,“isthemodethroughwhichtheisolatedsubjectcanthinkthepolitical[as
he]readsdailythecipherofadestinyhewillnevercomprehend.”93Asitwillturnout,
Deweywaswrong.ItisnotGlencairn’sfatethatwillbekepthidden.Infact,Deweywill
receivewritteninvitationtotheaddresswherehewillfindtheoldmansquattingonthe
threshold,whowilldohisbesttolayouttheconditionsforapossiblemomentof
comprehension.Glencairn’sbody,Glencairn’sdestiny,andperhapsDewey’sownaswell,
willallcomeintoviewinthefinallinesofthenarrative.
92Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,86.93Piglia,"TeoríaDelComplot,"5.
249
“OneafternoonIwashandedanenvelopecontainingaslipofpaperonwhichtherewasan
address,”94Deweyrecalls.Thisaddresswillleadhimtotheoldmansquattedonthe
threshold.ButwhatwouldcrossingthethresholdmeanforDewey?Whatpassageistheold
mankeeping?Dewydoesnotinfactcrossthethreshold—atleastinthenon-geographical
sense.ForDewey,lookingoverthethresholdfromwithout,itappearsthatwhatisrevealed
beyonditistheinvisiblerelationofplotandcomplot,narrativeandconspiracy.Atthat
moment,withthatrecognition,thetaleendsandthedissimulationiscomplete.Deweyis
not“inonit.”Hehasbeenblindedfromeverseeing“it.”
Theencounterwiththethresholdofthesecrethasrenderedperceptibletheinvisibilityof
thecomplotthataccompaniestheplot.Butthisismerely,asPigliahassuggested,“the
modethroughwhichtheisolatedsubjectthinksthepolitical.”95Theencounterwiththe
thresholdhasreinforcedDewey’sisolationasanindividualsubject,ithasreiteratedfor
himmorepowerfullyhismodeofthinkingpoliticaldivisions.Ithas,finally,guaranteedfor
himtheutterimpenetrabilityofthelimit—epistemologicalandnarrative—markedbythe
oldman.
Theconspiracy,itturnsout,ranfardeeperthanhefirstsuspected.Thecomplotwastoput
upthefaçadeofacomplot,toconvinceDeweyofthepresenceofasecret.Andthus,to
recasthispositionastheisolatedcenter,surroundedonallsidesbythosewhoare“inon
thesecret.”Thispeculiarmodeofsecrecypresentstwoquestions.First,ifDeweyistheonly
94Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,87.95Piglia,"TeoríaDelComplot,"5.
250
onethatdoesn’tknowthesecret,inwhatsenseisitasecret?Second,inwhatwaymight
thecirculationofthisknowledgeofferananswertothequestion:whosehistoriaisthis?
Borges’IndiaisafinepupilofR.Nachman’spoliticsofsecrecyonseveralcounts.Atfirst,
Deweytookthesecrettobe“whatIaloneknow.”Thisishowhefirstheardofthematter.
“Thesethingswererelatedtomebymysuperior,forthecensorshipwasstrictandthe
newspapersmadenocommenton[…]Glencairn’sdisappearance.”96Hewasbrought“inon
it”byhissuperior.Healoneknowswhatthepublicdoesnot,andcouldnotreadinthe
papers—thatajudgehasgonemissing.Butthisisinvertedinhisfirstpersonaccount,as
thesecretbecomesforhim,finally,“whatIalonedonotknow.”Deweycomestoknowthe
secretinthewayR.Nachmanwants“thenations”toknowthesecret.
Moreover,theoverlapofplotandcomplotiswherethesecretexistsaspolitical.Thisisfirst
prefiguredinDewey’sdescriptionoftheoldman.“Hismanyyearshadwornhimdownand
polishedhimassmoothaswaterpolishesastone,orasgenerationsofmenpolisha
sentence.”97Inwhatsensedogenerationspolishasentence?Asbecomesevidentfromthe
oldman’stale,thelinkbetweenjudicialandnarrativesentencesisanotheraspectofthe
politicsofsecrecy,whichparsethethresholdbetweentheoldmanandDewey.98“The
Englishjusticeheadministeredwasnotfamiliartoanyone,”99theoldmantellsofthefirst
judge.Thepoliticsofsecrecywasmeanttoconfrontthedemandthatallsentencesbeby96Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,86.97Ibid.98Jenckeshasalsonotedthisdoublemeaningof“sentence,”butreadsitratheras“boththegrammaticalandjudicialsense.”Inthebroadersettingofthenarrativetemporalitytheoldmanweaves,Isuggestthestrongerreferenceistothewaygenerationsofmenpolishthetaleaboutamissingjudge.InthissenseIread“sentences”ratherasjudicialandnarrative.See:Jenckes,"BorgesbeforetheLaw,"148.99Borges,TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969,88.
251
theEmpire’swriting.Itdoessobyproducingalternatesentences,onceagainlinking
judicialandnarrative.
ThesentenceGlencairn(andthepreviousjudge)hearfromthemadmanandthesentences
Deweyhearsfromtheoldmanalsodisplaythelinkbetweenjudicialandnarrative.The
momentDeweyfindsGlencairn’sbodyisthemomentthislinkbecomesevident.Itisalso
themomentthereaderrecognizestheoverlapofplotandcomplot.Borgesandthemanon
thethresholdboth“narratetheconstructionofacomplotand,bytellingushowacomplot
isconstructed,theynarratehowafictionisconstructed.”100Bringingthisoverlapintoview,
thereadertooperceivesthesecretasthethresholdofadividethatisbothpoliticaland
fictional.
AsthenarrativepassesfromtheoldmantoDewey,fromDeweytoBorgesandfromBorges
tohisreaders,itlaysouttheanalogousidentityofthecharactersaswellastheanalogous
identityofthepoliticalandthefictional.Thisleadsbacktothequestion:inwhatwaymight
thecirculationofthesecretofferananswertothequestion:whosehistoriaisthis?Complot
asapoliticalthoughtistransformedintocomplotasnarrativeof“thecommon,”ofdefining
theouterlimitsofinclusion.Itisnotasecretknowledgebutaknowledgeofthesecretthat
performsthisoperation.InthefinalsceneofR.Nachman’stale,theknowledgeofasecret
willbetheultimatedivisionbetweenthekingandtheminister,asbetweenthemarranos
andthepublic.
100Piglia,"TeoríaDelComplot,"4.
252
[Scene4,part2]
Thesecondpartofthisfinalscenebeginsbyreturningtotheriddleoftheoxandlamb.
Oncethekingwenttosleep,andsawinadreamthattheskieswereclear,
andhesawalltwelvesignofthezodiac,andhesawthattheoxandlambthat
areamongthesignofthezodiac,thattheyarelaughingathim,andhewoke
ingreatangerandveryfearful,andhecommandedtobringthebookof
chronicles(theSeferHaZichronot)andfoundwrittenthatbyoxandlambwill
hisseedbefelled,andagreatfearovercamehim.101
Thefourthscenebeganwiththeking’sdecreethattherebenooxorlambanywhereinhis
country,andthereforehavingnofearofanything.Thedreammarksthebeginningofthe
secondpartofthisscene,inwhichthekingisentirelymotivatedbyhisfear.Andthisfearis
onceagainbroughtonbytherunicoxandlamb.
Letusrecallthatinhisinterpretationoftheambiguousmeaningoftheastrologers’
warning,thefourthkinghasdecidedtoguardhimselfagainstthesecretoftheoxandlamb,
ratherthanbelievethesecretwoulditselfguardhim.Thisfearofthesecretiscompounded
byhisrecognitionofthecomplementarityofpublicandprivateattheexclusionofthe
secret,whichishowweinterpretedthemannerinwhichhestrippedtheministerofhis
privileges.
101Braslav,SippureiMaasiyot,22a-22b.RabbiNachmancallsthezodiacsigns“oxandlamb”tofitwiththeearliersymbols,butherefersofcoursetoTaurusandAries.InHebrew,“lamb”(seh)isnotthenameforAries.Thatwouldbetaleh.
253
Thekingsummonsallhisdream-interpretersbutnonecaninterpretthisdream.Theking
istransformedbyhisfearintoaparanoidconspiracytheorist:Thereisagreatsecret,he
believes,towhichhehasnoaccess.Allhehasistheknowledgeofitsexistenceandthe
terrorofitsfatefulsignificance.Theoxandlambare(toborrowPiglia’swords)“thecipher
ofadestinyhewillnevercomprehend.”102Thenthewisemanentersthescene.
Thewisemanfindsadramaticallyalteredking.Heisnolongerthefearlessruler,bentona
totalizingproject.Henolongerlooksoutoverhiskingdomandseesthevastpublichis
greatgrandfatherbeganconstructing,andwhichhe,ingreatwisdomhasperfectedwithout
war.Heisnowafearfulandobsessiveruler,whocannolongerseefarenoughtorecognize
“thepublic”thathasbeenhisdynasticproject.Thoughhedoesnotrecognizethe
connectionbetween“thesecret”andthesecretJewsofhiskingdom(nordoesthereaderat
thispoint),thepoliticsofsecrecyhavenonethelesstakeneffectandbeguntostrainhis
graspofreality—insertingeverywhere,inplaceofthenarrativeplot,thepossibilityofits
overlapwithacomplot.
Assuggestedearlier,R.Nachman’sstorychartsthecreationofthosenon-spatial
delimitations,withinwhichBorges’storyattemptstoidentifyathreshold.Inthissense,the
analogousidentitybetweenthetwostoriesremainsindeterminate.Thefigureoftheking
(whosepermanentexclusionthenarrativemustreconcile)recursinthecharacterof
Glencairnbutpassesfinally(inthepost-independence1952frame)toDewey.Inthatsense,
intheminister’sinteractionswiththevariouskingswegetaglimpseatthetensionproper
102Piglia,"TeoríaDelComplot,"5.
254
tolifeat“theedge,”alife(andagroup)thatisrathertransparentinBorges’tale.Itisatthis
moment,whenthekingismorelikeDeweythanGlencairn—searchingforan
interpretationtohisdream,ananswertotheriddle,andfindingonlyindicationsofits
inaccessibility—atthismomentheisinvited,unknowingly,tothethreshold.
ThewisemanwillboastanimpressiveknowledgeofwhatR.Nachmancalls“our
wisdom,”103—astrology.Hetellstheking“thereare365coursesofthesun,andthereisa
place,whichall365coursesshineupon,andtheregrowsanironrod,andhewhohasfear,
whenhecomestothatrodheissavedfromfear.”104Thewisemanwouldmakeafine
leaderaccordingtoR.Nachman’scriteria.Herevealshisknowledgeofastrology’ssecrets,
withoutrevealingthesecretofhisknowledge.“Itisatraditionfrommyfather,”105hetells
thekingfourtimes.Thekingisinvitedtothisplacewheretheironrodgrows.
Asitturnsout,ourfourthkingisnottheonlyonewhoseekstheironrod,or(wemight
surmise)tobesavedfromhisfear.Theroadtotherodleadsthroughagreatfire,andthere
aremanykingswalkingthispath,accompaniedbyJewswearingtheirtalitandtefilin.
Thesekingsareallwalkingthroughthefireunharmed,ontheirwaytotherod.This,the
taleexplains,“sincethosekingshadJewslivingintheircountries,thereforetheywereable
103Braslav,LikkuteiMoharan,1,61:3.104SippureiMaasiyot,23a.Whatthisironrodreferstoisnotclear.BraslavinterpretersseeitasanallusiontoPsalms2:9.ArnoldBand(andSchleicherfollowshisinterpretation)notesthedoublemeaningoftheHebrewword“shevet,”whichmeansboth“rod”and“tribe,”andsuggestsitisanallusiontotheJewsthemselves,asan“irontribe.”Thereisadidacticredundancyinthetaleaccordingtothismoralisticinterpretation,sincethekingsarealreadywalkingwiththeJewsoftheirkingdomonthepathtowardstherod.Forourreading,inwhichthisrod-tribeisthemarkerofthethreshold,perhapswemustaccepttheinaccessibilityofasignificancethatliesbeyondit.105Ibid.
255
towalkthroughthefire.”106Thewisemanhimselfseemsunawareofthisexplanation,orat
leastunwillingtodiscloseit.Herefusestowalkthroughthefire,becausethistooispartof
thetraditionfromhisfather.
Thefourthsceneendsratherabruptly.Thekingandthewisemanhaveadisagreement.
Thewisemandoesn’twanttowalkthroughthefirebuttheking,seeingotherkings
walkingthoughitunharmed,wantstoproceedtowardstheironrod.Thekingistoo
controlledbyfear,toointenttoovercomeit,tolistentothewiseman’swarning.Thewise
manendsthedisagreementbysaying,“Idonotwanttogo,ifyouwanttogo,go
[whereupon]thekingandhisseedwent,andthefirecameoverthem,andhewasburned
withhisseed,andtheywereallfelled.”107Theastrologers’warningcomestrue.Clearlyhe
wasnotguardedfromoxandlambcorrectly.Butwhathappened?
Afterword
Theking’sdeathmarkstheendofthenarrative.Buttheriddleisstillunsolved.Thereisa
shortafterwordinwhichtheministerexplainstheriddle,incasethereaderhasnotyet
madetheconnectionbetweentheoxandlambandtheJewsofthekingdom.“Bymewashe
felled,[explainstheminister]fortheastrologerssawanddidnotknowwhattheysaw.”108
Intheriddleoftheoxandlambisasecretthatprecedestheinversionbetween“whatI
aloneknow”and“whatIalonedon’tknow.”Inasense,thesolutiontotheriddleinvolves
106Ibid.107Ibid.108Ibid.
256
thedeterminationofthesetwopossibilitiesofsecrecy,andtheprivilegingofthelatter.Asit
turnsout,thesolutiontothisriddleissomethingofapublicsecret,asitisknowntoall
Jews.Itistheoxfromwhichtefilinaremadeandlambfromwhichatalitismade.These
ritualitemswouldhaveguardedtheking,buthechosetoguardagainstthem.
Thisexplanationbytheminister,“bymewashefelled,”alsomarkshisrecognitionofhis
ownerrorinthinkingtherecouldbenosuchthingasakinglesscountry.Notonlydoeshe
nowliveinsuchacountry,buthehimselfwastheinstrumentofitsformation.Thequestion
isinwhatway.Thekingsthatweresavedfromthefire“hadJewslivingintheir
countries,”109theministerexplainsfurther.ButthislatekinghadJewslivinginhiscountry
too.Theywerejustnotallowedtopractice(thatis,weartalitandtefilin)inpublic.
WecannowsuggestthatwithinR.Nachman’stale,anditsattempttonarratetheminister’s
crossingoftheedgeintotheopeningofamargin,thegreatfirefunctionslikethethreshold
inBorges’narrative.Itmarksthepassageintoanotherorderofsecrecy,anin-between
spaceinrelationto“thepublic.”Theformationofthesecretasthedisruptionofthe
public/privatecomplementarityindicatesalimitthatthreatensthesurvivalofrulership
undersuchconditions.
“Ontheonehand,then,Borgesposesthesimplicityofthecircle;ontheother,the
complexityoftheinfinitesimal.Thesefascinatingyethazardousfigureswillemergeinhis
fictionalnarrativeswheretheyproducetheeffectofafrustratednarrativeprojectwhich
109Ibid.
257
neverthelessallowsthenarrator(andthereader)toexperience,howeverfurtively,the
frontiersofreality(orunreality),oftheworld,andofthetext.”110Whatliesbeyondthis
frontier,acrossthisthreshold,isnottheotherworldly,unrealimplosionofthetext.Itisthe
existenceofamargin,whichissimultaneouslythemarginofanytextandofanyworldthat
is(self-)conceivedintermsofa“public.”Weshouldthusnotunderstandtheseanalogous
narrativesasattemptingaradicaldecentralizationofthepublic.Rather,readingthese
narrativesaspartofahistoriauniversal,weseethemannerinwhichaligningthesecret
withthemarginreaffirmsthepublic.Thesecretofthemargin,whichexcludesthepublic,
theking,thetotalityofempire,isaninvertedsecret.Itexcludestheheartofthetotality.
Theabsentcenter(intheformofamissingjudicialauthority,akinglesscountry)iswhat
Deweymustsetoutinsearchof,andwhattheministerisleftwith.
Itmaybethathistoriauniversalisthehistoryofthedifferent
intonationsgivenahandfulofmetaphors.
(TheFearfulSphereofPascal,1951–closingsentence111)
110Selnes,"Borges,Nietzsche,Cantor:NarrativesofInfluence".6.111Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,184.
258
InConclusion:
TheQuestionofJewishWriting
Inconcluding,Iwouldliketoreturntothetitleofthisstudy,andaskabout“thequestionof
Jewishwriting.”Ihaveattemptedtooutlineaquestionabout“modernwriting”thatcannot
bereducedtodiscourseorpoetics,traditionoritsedge,butisabouttheconfluenceofallof
these.Aquestionaboutwritingthatemergestroughthesimultaneousgroundinginand
dissociationfroma“tradition.”ForbothR.NachmanandBorges,traditionisthenameofa
lack.Alackthatiscomingorthathascome,alackthatdetachesonefrom“history,”orthat
isthemarkofsuchadetachment.
R.NachmanandBorgesbotharticulatetraditionasalackthatisparadigmaticofthein-
betweenspacebeyondthelimitsoftheirsocialandpoeticworlds,asa“margin”thatis
openedupthroughtrespassingthelimitsoftradition.SayingR.NachmanandBorgesare
marginaldoesn’tspeaktotheirsignificance.Itspeakstotheirrelationtothecategoryof
Literature.Theybothpushthequestionofmarginandtradition:Cantherebealiterature
beyondtradition,inthemarginthatopensthroughencounteringtraditionasalack?What
writingispossibleattheedge,whentheedgeisone’spointofdeparture?
TotheextentthatBorgesattemptedtheimpossibledeparturefromanedgeintoanin-
betweenspacethatwasunimaginableattheoutset,Ihaveconsideredhistextsinrelation
tocategoriesof“modernwriting.”AndtotheextentthatR.Nachmanidentifiesthe
possibilityofanopening—tobenarratedinwriting—ontoa“Borgesianmargin,”weshould
259
keepthiscriticalconfigurationinmindasaconstitutivecomponentof“modernwriting”in
itsJewishcontexttoo—andnotasitsexception(asmanyreadersofR.Nachmanhaveseen
it).R.Nachman’swritingisakeymomentinarticulatingthecontradictorynatureofthose
rulesandexclusionsthatwouldlatercometodefine“modernwriting”initsJewishcontext
aswell.Hiswritingalsohighlightstheconstitutiveroleofwriterswhowould,in
subsequentgenerations,cometodefinethiscategory’souterlimits.
Ihaveinsistedontheinadequacyoftermssuchas“forerunner”112or“colonial”113in
describingR.NachmanandBorges’locationanddeparture. Instead,IhavesuggestedSaid’s
discussionof“beginnings”(inspiteofSaidhimselfcitingBorgesasanexception)asamore
productivewaytothinkaboutintransitivelocationsandtheirliterarydepartures.Inthis
sense,Borgescanbethoughtasthe(intransitive)beginningof“modernwriting”inapost-
colonialArgentinesetting.114AndR.Nachmancanbethoughtasthe(intransitive)
beginningof“modernwriting”inanEasternEuropeanJewishsetting.Inthissense,tothink
ofBorgesandR.Nachmanasmarkingan“attempttodepart”istoinsistonafurther
theoreticalintervention:Thefaultlinesofthebreakfromtradition,vis-à-viswhichmodern
writinghasbeenconceptualized,alreadyexistedpoeticallyanddiscursively,inthetermsof
thatsametradition,atthepointofdeparture,fromwhich“modernwriting”waslaunched.
Whatistheroleofthepersistentreferenceto“theJudaic”inthisobservation?References
totheJudaicinR.NachmanandBorges,aswellasintheirreaders’effortstograpplewith
112Schwartz,"RabbiNachmanofBratslav:ForerunnerofModernJewishLiterature."113Asin:FernándezRetamar,Calibán:ApuntesSobreLaCulturaEnNuestraAmérica.114Seealso:EdnaAizenberg,"Borges,PostcolonialPrecursor,"WorldLiteratureToday66,no.1(1992).
260
thequestionof“modernwriting,”highlighttheirfirmgroundingwithintraditionalfamilial
andliterarylines,whilesimultaneouslyproducingadislocationfromsuchtraditional
affiliations.Thatistosay,theJudaicallowsthemtocreatethedisplacementintermsof
whichadeparture—evenifunimaginable—canbeattempted.“TheJudaic”enables
somethingentirelyheterogeneousto“Judaism.”ItreverberatesinthewritingofR.
NachmanandBorgesasaquestionabouttheveryviabilityoftheconceptsof“themodern
writer”and“modernwriting,”asconstitutedbyabreakfromtradition.Whatsuch
conceptualizationispossiblewhenthebreakisalreadypresentwithinthetradition?And
when“tradition”isitselfconstitutedthroughaseriesofbreaks?
Insistingnonethelessuponsuchanotionof“modernwriting”—asdomanyofthereaders
citedthroughoutthepresentstudy—wouldframetheconstitutionofsuchacategoryasan
exception.Onebreakinaseriesofbreaks,takenasanexceptiontotheothersandframing
theruleaboutexceptions.Conceivingof“modernwriting”intermsofasinglebreakina
serieswouldthusbetoinsistupontheexceptionitselfastherule.R.NachmanandBorges
poseaquestionabouttherelationbetweentherulesof“modernwriting”andits
exceptions.Withinaconceptof“modernwriting”asanexceptionalbreakfromaseriesof
breaks,howarewetounderstandthesamereadersIhavebeenciting,framingR.Nachman
andBorgesastheexceptionstotherule?Thecontradictoryanswerwouldbe:The
exceptiontoanexceptioncanmakeup“therule”asmuchasthebreakfromabreakcan
makeupa“tradition.”Thepresentstudyhassoughttoundermineboththeexceptionand
theruleitpresumes.Thishasbeenacontradictoryendeavor,perhaps,butnomoresothan
theruleandexceptionithasthusquestioned.
261
Bibliography
A.H."CarácterDeEstasNotas."Crisol,Jan.30,1934,4.Adur,Lucas."BorgesYElCristianismo:Posiciones,DiálogosYPolémicas."UBA,2013.Aizenberg,Edna."A21stCenturyNoteonBorges'sKabbalism."VariacionesBorges39
(2015):51-58.———.TheAlephWeaver:Biblical,KabbalisticandJudaicElementsinBorges[inEnglish].
Potomac,Md.:ScriptaHumanistica,1984.———.BooksandBombsinBuenosAires:Borges,Gerchunoff,andArgentine-JewishWriting
[inEnglish].Hanover:UniversityPressofNewEngland,2002.———.Borges,ElTejedorDelAlephYOtrosEnsayos:DelHebraìsmoAlPoscolonialismo[in
Spanish].FrankfurtamMaim;Madrid:Vervuert;Iberoamericana,1997.———."Borges,PostcolonialPrecursor."WorldLiteratureToday66,no.1(1992):21-26.———.""I,aJew":Borges,NazismandtheShoah."JewishQuarterlyReview104,no.3
(2014).———."PostmodernorPost-Auschwitz,BorgesandtheLimitsofRepresentation."
VariacionesBorges3(1997):141-52.Alazraki,Jaime."BorgesandtheKabbalah."[InEnglish].TriQuarterly25(1972).———."KabbalisticTraitsinBorges'Narrative."[InEnglish].StudiesinShortFiction8,no.
1(1971).Anidjar,Gil."JewishMysticismAlterableandUnalterable:OnOrientingKabbalahStudies
andthe'ZoharofChristianSpain'."JewishSocialStudies3,no.1(1996):89-157.———."LiteraryHistoryandHebrewModernity."ComparativeLiteratureStudies42,no.4
(2005):277-96.———."OurPlaceinAl-Andalus":Kabbalah,Philosophy,LiteratureinArabJewishLetters[in
English].Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2002.Arad,Mordechai.MehalelShabatBe-Farhesya:MunahTalmudiU-Mashma`UtoHa-Historit
[inHebrew].NewYork;Yerushalayim:JewishTheologicalSeminary,2009.Arbel,Michal.TamVe-Nishlam?:`AlDarkheHa-SiyumBa-Siporet[inHebrew].Tel-Aviv:ha-
Kibutsha-meuhad:KerenYehoshu`aRabinovitsle-omanuyot,2008.Arkush,Allan.MosesMendelssohnandtheEnlightenment[inEnglish].Albany:State
UniversityofNewYork,1994.Asad,Talal.GenealogiesofReligion:DisciplineandReasonsofPowerinChristianityandIslam
[inEnglish].Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1993.Balderston,Daniel.OutofContext:HistoricalReferenceandtheRepresentationofRealityin
Borges[inEnglish].Durham[N.C.]:DukeUniversityPress,1993.Band,ArnoldJ.NahmanofBratslav,theTales[inTranslationofSipurema`asiyot.].New
York:PaulistPress,1978.Bartal,Israel."TheImprintofHaskalahLiteratureontheHistoriographyofHasidism."In
HasidismReappraised,editedbyAdaRapoport-Albert.London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,1996.
Bartal,Yisrael.TheJewsofEasternEurope,1772-1881[inTranslatedfromtheHebrew.].Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2005.
Benton,LaurenA.LawandColonialCulturesLegalRegimesinWorldHistory,1400-1900[inEnglish].Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.
262
Benton,LaurenA.,andRichardJeffreyRoss,eds.LegalPluralismandEmpires,1500-1850.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2013.
Bernstein,Michael.ForegoneConclusions:AgainstApocalypticHistory[inEnglish].Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994.
Biale,David.GershomScholem:KabbalahandCounter-History.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1979.
———."GershomScholem'sTenUnhistoricalAphorismsonKabbalah:TextandCommentary."ModernJudaism5,no.1(1985):67-93.
Bischoff,Erich.DieElementeDerKabbalah[inGerman].Berlin:H.Barsdorf,1913.BlockdeBehar,Lisa."AntecedentsofanUnexpectedPoeticAffinity:JorgeLuisBorgesas
ReaderofMartinBuber."InThinkingwithBorges,editedbyWilliamEggintonandDavidE.Johnson,183-201.Aurora,CO:TheDaviesGroup,2009.
Bloom,Harold.KabbalahandCriticism[inEnglish].NewYork:Seabury,1975.Borges,JorgeLuis.TheAlephandOtherStories1933-1969[inEnglish].Translatedby
NormanThomasDiGiovanni.NewYork:Bantam,1971.———."AlfonsoReyes."Sur264(1960):1-2.———.Discusión[inSpanish].BuenosAires:M.Gleizer,1932.———."ElEscritorArgentinoYLaTradición."CursosyConferenciasXLII,no.250(1953).———.ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza[inSpanish].BuenosAires:EditorialProa,1926.———.ElTamañoDeMiEsperanza[inSpanish].Barcelona:SeixBarral,1994.———.EvaristoCarriego[inSpanish].BuenosAires:M.Gleizer,1930.———.FervorDeBuenosAires:Poemas[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Impr.Serrantes,1923.———.HistoriaDeLaEternidad[inSpanish].BuenosAires:[F.a.Colombo],1936.———.HistoriaDeLaNoche[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Emece,1977.———."HistoriaDeLosEcosDeUnNombre."CuadernosdelCongresoporlalibertaddela
cultura15(1955):10-12.———.HistoriaUniversalDeLaInfamia.ColecciónMegáfono.BuenosAires:EditorialTor,
1935.———."KafkaYSusPrecursores."LaNacion,August19,1951,1.———."LaCábala."LaOpinión,1977.———."LaEternidadYT.S.Eliot."Poesía1,no.3(1933).———.Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings[inEnglish].NewYork:New
DirectionsPub.Corp.,1964.———.ObrasCompletas,1923-1972[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Emecé,1976.———.ObrasCompletas,1975-1985[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Emecé,1989.———.OnArgentina[inEnglish].EditedbyAlfredMacAdamandSuzanneJillLevineNew
York:PenguinBooks,2010.———.SelectedNon-Fictions[inEnglish].TranslatedbyEliotWeinberger.NewYork:
Viking,1999.———.SevenNights[inEnglish].TranslatedbyEliotWeinberger.NewYork:New
DirectionsPub.Corp.,1984.———.SieteNoches[inSpanish].MexicoD.F.;BuenosAires:FondodeCulturaEconomica,
1980.———.TextosRecobrados,1931-1955[inSpanish].BuenosAires:EmeceEditores,2001.———."Yo,Judío."Megáfono,no.12(April1934).Borges,JorgeLuis"TresFormasDelEternoRegreso."LaNación,Dec.14,1941.
263
Borges,JorgeLuis,andMargaritaGuerrero.ManualDeZoologíaFantástica[inSpanish].Mexico:FondodeCulturaEconómica,1957.
Borges,JorgeLuis,andAdolfoBioyCasares.CuentosBrevesYExtraordinarios(Antologia).BuenosAires:EditorialRaigal,1955.
Borges,JorgesLuis."ElHombreEnElUmbral."LaNacion,April20,1952.Borges,ElJudaìsmoEIsrael.EditedbyMarioEduardoCohen.2ed,Sefaradica,vol.6.Buenos
Aires:CentrodeInvestigaciónyDifusióndelaCulturaSefardí,1999.Bosteels,Bruno."AfterBorges:LiteraryCriticismandCriticalTheory."1995.———."BorgesasAntiphilosopher."[InEnglish].Vanderbilte-journalofLuso-Hispanic
studies3(2006).Bourdieu,Pierre.OutlineofaTheoryofPractice[inTranslationwithrevisionsofEsquisse
d'unethÈoriedelapratique.].Cambridge,U.K.;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977.
Braslav,Nachmanof.LikkuteiMoharan[inHebrew].Vol.1,Ostroh1808.———.LikkuteiMoharan[inHebrew].Vol.2,Mohilev1811.———.SippureiMaasiyot[inHebrew,Yiddish].Lemberg,1815.Browning,Robert.PacchiarottoandHowHeWorkedinDistemper:WithOtherPoems[in
English].London:Smith,Elder&Co.,1876.Buber,Martin.BetweenManandMan[inEnglish].TranslatedbyRonaldGregor-Smith.
London&NewYork:Routledge,2002.———.GogandMagog:ANovel[inEnglish].TranslatedbyLudwigLewisohn.Syracuse,
NY:SyracuseUniversityPress,1999.———.GogUndMagog:EineChronik[inGerman].Heidelberg:Schneider,1949.———.Hasidism[inEnglish].NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1948.———.IandThou[inEnglish].TranslatedbyRonaldGregorSmith.NewYork:Charles
Scribner'sSons,1937.———.IsraelandtheWorld:EssaysinaTimeofCrisis.SchockenBooks,1948.———.KonigtumGottes[inGerman].Berlin:Schocken,1932.———,ed.TheTalesofRabbiNachman.AtlanticHighlands,NJ:HumanitiesPress
International,1988.———.TalesoftheHasidim:TheEarlyMasters[inEnglish].NewYork:SchockenBooks,
1947.———.VomGeistDesJudentums[inGerman].Leipzig:K.Wolff,1916.———.TheWritingsofMartinBuber.NewYork:MeridianBooks,1956.Castro,JuanE.de."DeEliotaBorges:TradiciónYPeriferia."IberoamericanaVII,no.26
(2007):7-18.Charny,Vitaly."1804RussianSetofLawsConcerningJews."
http://www.jewishgen.org/belarus/1804_laws.htm.Christ,Ronald."JorgeLuisBorges,theArtofFictionNo.39."[InEnglish].TheParisReview
40(1967).Dan,Joseph."BeyondtheKabbalisticSymbol."[InHebrew].JerusalemStudiesinJewish
Thought5(1986):363-85.———.Ha-SipurHa-Hasidi[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:BetHotsa`ahKeterYerushalayim,
1975.
264
———."RabbiNahman'sThirdBeggar."InHistoryandLiterature:NewReadingsofJewishTextsinHonorofArnoldJ.Band,editedbyWilliamCutterandDavidC.Jacobson.Providence,RI:PrograminJudaicStudies,BrownUniversity,2002.
DeMan,Paul."TheConceptofIrony."InAestheticIdeology,editedbyAndrzejWarminski,163-84.Minneapolis;London;London:UniversityofMinnesotapress,1997.
———."AModernMaster."TheNewYorkReviewofBooks(November19November19,1964).
Diamant,Mario."UnaConversaciónConJorgeL.Borges".Plural3,no.19(Nov.1978).Dubnow,Simon.AHistoryofHasidism[inEnglish].TranslatedbyLedererHelen.Cincinnati
1970.———.HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPoland,fromtheEarliestTimesuntilthePresent
Day.[inEnglish].TranslatedbyIsraelFriedlaender.3vols.Vol.1,Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSocietyofAmerica,1916.
———.ToldotHa-Hasidut[inHebrew].3vols.Tel-Aviv:Devir,1944.Durchslag,Audri."RabbiNahmanandHisReaders."Prooftexts2,no.2(1982):221-26.Dynner,Glenn.MenofSilktheHasidicConquestofPolishJewishSociety[inEnglish].New
York,N.Y.:OxfordUniversityPress,2006.Eisenmenger,JohannAndreas.EndecktesJudenthum,Oder:GrundlicherUndWahrhaffter
Bericht[...][inGerman].2vols.FrankfurtamMain:J.P.Andreae,1700.Eliot,T.S.SelectedEssays.London:FaberandFaber,1934.Elstein,Yoav.MaasehHoshev:IyunimBa-SipurHa-Hasidi[inHebrew].TelAviv:Eked,1983.———.Pa`AmeBatMelekh:HikreTokhenVe-TsurahBe-SipuroHa-RishonShelR.Nahman
Mi-Braslav[inHebrew].Ramat-Gan:UniversitatBar-Ilan,1984.Elstein,Yoav,andAvidavLipsker,eds.3vols.,EntsiklopedyahShelHa-SipurHa-Yehudi:
Sipur`OkevSipur.RamatGan:BarIlanUniversity,2004.FernándezRetamar,Roberto.Calibán:ApuntesSobreLaCulturaEnNuestraAmérica[in
Spanish].BuenosAires:LaPleyade,1973.Fishburn,Evelyn."Borges,Cabbalaand"CreativeMisreading"."Ibero-AmerikanischesArchiv
14,no.4(1988):401-18.———."ReflectionsontheJewishImaginaryintheFictionsofBorges."VariacionesBorges,
no.5(1998):145-56.Foucault,Michel.DeathandtheLabyrinth:TheWorldofRaymondRoussel[inEnglish].
GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1986.———.DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison.1stAmericaned.NewYork:Pantheon
Books,1977.———.HistoryofMadness.TranslatedbyJeanKhalfa.NewYork:Routledge,2006.———.TheHistoryofSexuality.1stAmericaned.NewYork:PantheonBooks,1978.———.TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences[inEnglish].NewYork:
PantheonBooks,1971.GraffZivin,Erin.TheWanderingSignifier:RhetoricofJewishnessintheLatinAmerican
Imaginary[inEnglish].Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2008.Gramsci,Antonio.AGramsciReader:SelectedWritings,1916-1935[inEnglish].NewYork:
NewYrokUniversityPress,2000.Gramuglio,MariaTeresa.NacionalismoYCosmopolitismoEnLaLiteraturaArgentina[in
Spanish].Rosario,Argentina:EditorialmunicipaldeRosario,2013.
265
Green,Arthur.TormentedMaster:TheLifeandSpiritualQuestofRabbiNahmanofBratslav[inEnglish].Woodstock,Vt.:JewishLightsPub.,1992.
Grözinger,Karl-Erich.KafkaandKabbalah.TranslatedbySusanHeckerRay.NewYork:Continuum,1994.
GutierrezBerner,Virginia."MysticalLaws;BorgesandKabbalah."[InEnglish].CR:TheNewCentennialReview9,no.3(2010):137-64.
Hamacher,Werner.Premises:EssaysonPhilosophyandLiteraturefromKanattoCelan[inTranslatedfromtheGerman.].Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2000.
Hazan,Avraham.SeferSippurimNifla'im.Jerusalem:H.Zukerman,1935.Hook,Sydney."CommunismandtheIntellectual."InTheIntellectuals:AControversial
Portrait,editedbyGeorgeB.deHuszar.Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960.Hundert,GershonDavid.JewsinPoland-LithuaniaintheEighteenthCenturyaGenealogyof
Modernity[inEnglish].Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2004.Huss,Boaz."ContemporaryKabbalahandItsChallengetotheAcademicStudyofJewish
Mysticism."InKabbalahandContemporarySpiritualRevival,editedbyBoazHuss.TheGoldstein-GorenLibraryofJewishThought,357-73.Beer-Sheva:Ben-GurionUniversityoftheNegev,2011.
———."TheMystificationoftheKabbalahandtheMythofJewishMysticism."[InHebrew].Pe'amim,no.110(2007):9-30.
Huszar,GeorgeB.de,ed.TheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait.Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960.
Idel,Moshe.HasidismbetweenEcstasyandMagic[inEnglish].Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995.
———."Hieroglyphs,Keys,Enigmas:OnG.G.Scholem'sVisionofKabbalah:BetweenFranzMolitorandFranzKafka."InArcheNoah:DieIdeeDer"Kultur"ImDeutsch-JüdischenDiskurs,editedbyBernhardGreinerandChristophSchmidt,227-48.Freiburg:RombachVerlag,2002.
———.KabbalahNewPerspectives[inEnglish].NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1988.Jacobson,Eric.MetaphysicsoftheProfane:ThePoliticalTheologyofWalterBenjaminand
GershomScholem[inEnglish].NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003.Jenckes,Kate."BorgesbeforetheLaw."InThinkingwithBorges,editedbyWilliamEgginton
andDavidE.Johnson.Aurora,Colo.:DaviesGroupPublishers,2009.———.ReadingBorgesafterBenjamin:Allegory,Afterlife,andtheWritingofHistory.Suny
SeriesinLatinAmericanandIberianThoughtandCulture.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2007.
"JorgesLuisBorges:Córdoba,InviernoDel85,MesesAntesDeSuMuerte."Plural,Jan.1989,7-19.
Kelz,RobertVincent."CompetingGermanies:TheFreieDeutscheBuhneandtheDeutschesTheaterinBuenosAires,Argentina,1938-1965."VanderbiltUniversity,2010.
King,Richard.OrientalismandReligion:PostcolonialTheory,Indiaand'theMysticEast'[inEnglish].London;NewYork:Routledge,1999.
Lewis,Yitzhak."Borges,ZionismandthePoliticsofReality."VariacionesBorges35(2013):163-80.
———."RevealingandConcealingasLiteraryDevicesintheTalesofRabbiNachman,or,theCaseoftheMissingEnding."MAThesis,ColumbiaUniversity,2010.
Leżajsk,Elimelechof.SeferNo'amElimelech[inHebrew].Lemberg1787.
266
Liberman,Haim."R.NachmanBreslaverUndDieUmenerMaskilim."[InYiddish].YIVOBleterXXIX(1947):201-19.
Liebes,Yehuda."TheNoveltyofRabbiNahmanofBratslav."[InHebrew].Daat:AJournalofJewishPhilosophy&Kabbalah,no.45(2000):91-103.
López-Quiñones,AntonioGómez.BorgesYElNazismo:Sur(1937-1946)[inSpanish].Granada:UniversidaddeGranada,2004.
Louis,Annick.BorgesAnteElFascismo[inSpanish].Bern;Oxford:PeterLang,2007.———."BorgesYElNazismo."VariacionesBorges4(1997):117-36.———."LaAdhesiónaLaRealidad:LasFiccionesDeBorgesDuranteLaSegundaGuerra
Mundial."InElEnigmaDeLoReal:LasFronterasDelRealismoEnLaNarrativaDelSigloXx,editedbyGenevieveFabryandClaudioCanaparo.Oxford;NewYork:PeterLang,2007.
Ludmer,Josefina.TheGauchoGenre:ATreatiseontheMotherland[inEnglish].Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2002.
Lyadi,ShneurZalmanof.Tanya,Ve-Hu,SeferLikuteAmarim[inHebrew].n.a.:DefusDovBerbenYisraelveDovBerbenPesach,1796.
Macherey,Pierre.TheObjectofLiterature[inTranslationof:íAquoipenselalittíerature?].Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.
Macherey,Pierre,andGeoffreyWall.ATheoryofLiteraryProduction[inEnglish].London;Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul,1978.
Magid,Shaul."AssociativeMidrash:ReflectionsonaHermaneuticalTheoryinRabbiNachmanofBraslav'sLikkuteiMoharan."Chap.1InGod'sVoicefromtheVoid:OldandNewStudiesinBratslavHasidism,editedbyShaulMagid,15-66.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2002.
Mahler,Refa'el.HasidismandtheJewishEnlightenment:TheirConfrontationinGaliciaandPoilandinthe1stHalfofthe19thCentury[inEnglish].Philadelphiau.a.:JewishPubl.Soc.ofAmerica,1985.
Mallea,Eduardo.HistoriaDeUnaPasiónArgentina[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Sur,1937.———.HistoryofanArgentinePassion[inEnglish].TranslatedbyMyronLichtblau.
Pittsburgh,PA:LatinAmericanLiteraryReviewPress,1983.Mamdani,Mahmood."DefineandRuleNativeasPoliticalIdentity."[InEnglish].(2012).Mark,Zvi.HitgalutVe-Tikun:Bi-KhetavavHa-GeluyimVeha-SodiyimShelR.NahmanMi-
Breslav[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:MagnesPress,HebrewUniversity,2011.———,ed.KolSipureRabiNahmanMi-Braslav:Ha-Ma`Asiyot,Ha-SipurimHa-Sodiyim,Ha-
HalomotVeha-Hezyonot.EditedbyDovElbaum.Jerusalem,Israel:MosadBialik;Yedi`otSefarim;Bayit-YetsirahIvrit,2014.
———.MegilatSetarim:He-HazonHa-MeshihiHa-SodiShelR.NahmanMi-Braslav[inHebrew].Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversity,2006.
———.MysticismandMadness:TheReligiousThoughtofRabbiNachmanofBratslav[inEnglish].London;NewYork;[Jerusalem]:Continuum;ShalomHartmanInstitute,2009.
———.TheScrollofSecretstheHiddenMessianicVisionofR.NachmanofBreslav[inEnglish].TranslatedbyNaftaliMoses.Brighton,MA:AcademicStudiesPress,2010.
Meir,Jonatan.ImaginedHasidism:TheAnti-HasidicWritingsofJosephPerl[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:MosadBialik,2013.
267
Meir,Jonatan,andSamuelWerses.ReshitHokhmah:HiburGanuzBi-GenutahShelHa-Hasidut[inHebrew;AbstractandtableofcontentsinEnglish].Jerusalem:MandelInstituteofJewishStudies,2011.
Mendes-Flohr,PaulR.DividedPassions:JewishIntellectualsandtheExperienceofModernity[inEnglish].Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1991.
Mendes-Flohr,PaulR.,andJehudaReinharz.JewintheModernWorld:DocumentaryHistory[inEnglish].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995.
Miron,Dan.FromContinuitytoContiguitytowardaNewJewishLiteraryThinking[inEnglish].Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2010.
Molloy,Sylvia.SignsofBorges[inEnglish].TranslatedbyOscarMontero.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,1994.
Mondolfo,Rodolfo."LaContradiccionDeNietzsche."LaNación,October5,1941.Montaldo,Graciela."Borges:UnaVanguardiaCriolla."InYrigoyenEntreBorgesYArlt:1916-
1930,editedbyGracielaMontaldo.BuenosAires:Contrapunto,1989.n/a.BoletinS.H.A.,1951.Nelson,Eric.TheHebrewRepublic,JewishSourcesandtheTranformationofEuropean
PoliticalThought:OfEuropeanPoliticalThought[inEnglish].Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2011.
Neumann,Boaz.Li-HeyotBe-RepublikatVaimar[inHebrew].TelAviv:`Am`oved,2007.———.ReiyatHa-`OlamHa-Natsit:Merhav,Guf,Safah[inAbstractinEnglish.].Hefah;Tel-
Aviv:Hotsaatha-sefarimshelUniversitatHefah;SifriyatMa`ariv,2002.Neumann,Boaz,RoniHirsh-Ratzkovsky,andGaliliShahar,eds.HistoryahBe-LoNahat:Ben
YehudimLe-Germanim.TelAviv;Yerushalayim:`Am`oved;MekhonLeoBek,2012.Newton,RonaldC."IndifferentSanctuary:German-SpeakingRefugeesandExilesin
Argentina,1933-1945."JournalofInteramericanStudiesandWorldAffairs24,no.4(1982):395-420.
Nigal,Gedalyah.LeksikonHa-SipurHa-Hasidi[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:ha-Mekhonle-hekerha-sifrutha-hasidit,2005.
Piekarz,Mendel.HasidutBraslav:PerakimBe-HayeMeholelehaUvi-Khetaveha[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1972.
Piglia,Ricardo."IdeologíaYFicciónEnBorges."PuntodeVista2,no.5(1979):3-6.Piglia,Ricardo"TeoríaDelComplot."Ramona:revistadeartesvisuales23(2002):11.Pillai,Johann."Irony,Romantic."InEncyclopediaoftheromanticera,1760-1850,editedby
ChristopherJohnMurray.London:Routledge,2003.Pitrushka,Sh."MakorPolaniLe-"SippureiMa'asiyot"ShelRabbiNachmanMi-Braslav."[In
Hebrew].Ketuvim42,no.91(July12,19281928):3.Polnoie,JaakovJosephof.SeferToldotYa`AkovYosef[inHebrew].1780.Porter,Brian.WhenNationalismBegantoHateImaginingModernPoliticsinNineteenth
CenturyPoland[inEnglish].NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000."PreocupaEnElReichLaActitudDeAmericaDelSur."LaNacion,Dec.14,1941.Propp,Vladimir.MorphologyoftheFolktale[inEnglish].TranslatedbyLaurenceScott.
Austin:UniversityofTexas,1968.Rabi."FascinationDeLaKabbale."L'Herne(1964).Raeff,Marc.MichaelSperansky:StatesmanofImperialRussia,1772-1839[inEnglish].
Hague:M.Nijhoff,1957.
268
Ranciere,Jacques.ThePoliticsofLiterature[inInEnglishtranslatedfromtheFrench.].TranslatedbyJulieRose.Cambridge;Malden,MA:Polity,2011.
———.ShortVoyagestotheLandofthePeople[inEnglish].Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,2003.
Rapoport-Albert,Ada."Hasidismafter1772:StructuralContinuityandChange."InHasidismReappraised,editedbyAdaRapoport-Albert.London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,1996.
Raz-Krakotzkin,Amnon.TheCensor,theEditor,andtheText:TheCatholicChurchandtheShapingoftheJewishCanonintheSixteenthCentury.JewishCultureandContexts.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2007.
Rosato,Laura,GermánÁlvarez,andNacionalBiblioteca.Borges,LibrosYLecturas:CatálogoDeLaColecciónJorgeLuisBorgesEnLaBibliotecaNacional[inSpanish].BuenosAires:EdicionesBibliotecaNacional,2010.
Rosenfeld,Sophia."WritingtheHistoryofCensorshipintheAgeofEnlightenment."InPostmodernismandtheEnlightenment:NewPerspectivesinEighteenth-CenturyFrenchIntellectualHistory,editedbyDanielGordon.NewYork:Routledge,2001.
Roskies,DavidG.ABridgeofLonging:TheLostArtofYiddishStorytelling[inEnglish].Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1995.
Rosman,MurrayJay.FounderofHasidism:AQuestfortheHistoricalBa'alShemTov[inEnglish].Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996.
Said,EdwardW.Beginnings:IntentionandMethod[inEnglish].NewYork:BasicBooks,1975.
———.RepresentationsoftheIntellectual:The1993ReithLectures[inEnglish].NewYork:PantheonBooks,1994.
Salomon,Albert."TheMessianicBohemians."InTheIntellectuals:AControversialPortrait,editedbyGeorgeB.deHuszar.Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960.
Salvador,Gonzalo.BorgesYLaBiblia[inInSpanish.].Madrid;FrankfurtamMain:Iberoamericana;Vervuert,2011.
Sarlo,Beatriz.Borges,UnEscritorEnLasOrillas[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Ariel,1995.———.JorgeLuisBorges:AWriterontheEdge[inEnglish].London:Verso,1993.Schechter,Ronald.ObstinateHebrews:RepresentationsofJewsinFrance,1715-1815[in
English].Berkeley:Univ.ofCaliforniaPress,2003.Schlegel,Friedrichvon.FriedrichSchlegel'sLucindeandtheFragments[inEnglish].
TranslatedbyPeterFirchow.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1971.Schleicher,Marianne.IntertextualityintheTalesofRabbiNahmanofBratslavaClose
ReadingofSippureyMaasiyot[inEnglish].Leiden;Boston:Brill,2007.Scholem,Gershom."Mi-TokhHirhurimʻalḤokhmatYiśraʼel."InDevarimBe-Go:Pirke
MorashahU-Tehiyah,385-403.TelAviv:`Am`oved,1976.———.OntheKabbalahandItsSymbolism[inEnglish].NewYork:SchockenBooks,1965.———.OriginsoftheKabbalah.TranslatedbyAllanArkush.Philadelphia;Princeton:
JewishPublicationSociety;PrincetonUniversityPress,1987.———.ZehnUnhistorischeSätzeÜberKabbala[inGerman].Zurich:Rhein-Verlag,1958.Scholem,GershomGerhard.MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism[inEnglish].NewYork:
SchockenBooks,1961.———.MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism[inEnglish].NewYork:SchockenBooks,1995.
269
———.TheMessianicIdeainJudaismandOtherEssaysonJewishSpirituality[inEnglish].NewYork:SchockenBooks,1971.
———."RememptionthroughSin."(1937).———.SabbataiSevi;theMysticalMessiah,1626-1676[inEnglish].Princeton,N.J:
PrincetonUniversityPress,1973.Schwartz,Howard."RabbiNachmanofBratslav:ForerunnerofModernJewishLiterature."
Judaism31,no.2(1982):211-24.Seeman,Don,andShaulMagid."MysticalPoetics:TheJewishMysticalTextasLiterature."
Prooftexts29,no.3(2009):317-23.Selnes,Gisle."Borges,Nietzsche,Cantor:NarrativesofInfluence."CiberLetras6(2002).
http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/ciberletras/v06/selnes.html.Seton-Watson,Hugh."TheRussianIntellectuals."InTheIntellectuals:AControversial
Portrait,editedbyGeorgeB.deHuszar.Glencoe,Ill.:FreePress,1960.Siff,DavidB."ShiftingIdeologiesofOralityandLiteracyinTheirHistoricalContext:Rebbe
NahhmanofBratslav’sEmbraceoftheBookasaMeansforRedemption."Profftexts30(2010).
Smith,ChaniHaran.TuningtheSoul:MusicasaSpiritualProcessintheTeachingsofRabbiNahmanofBratzlav[inEnglish].Leiden;Boston:Brill,2010.
Sosnowski,Saúl.BorgesYLaCábala:LaBúsquedaDelVerbo[inSpanish].BuenosAires:Ed.Hispamérica,1976.
———."ElVerboCabalísticoEnLaObraDeBorges."Hispamérica3,no.9(1975):35-54.Speight,Allen."FriedrichSchlegel."InTheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,editedby
EdwardN.Zalta,2011.Spiegel,YaakovShmuel.ChaptersintheHistoryoftheJewishBook[inHebrew].3vols.Vol.3
–BeSha'areiHaDefus,Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversity,2014.Spivak,GayatriChakravorty."CantheSubalternSpeak?".InMarxismandtheInterpretation
ofCulture,editedbyCaryNelsonandLawrenceGrossberg,271-313.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1988.
Stael,Germainede.Politics,Literature,andNationalCharacter[inEnglish].TranslatedbyMorroeBerger.NewBrunswick,U.S.A.;London,U.K.:TransactionPublishers,2000.
Stehelin,JohnPeter.TheTraditionsoftheJews;withtheExpositionsandDoctrinesoftheRabbins,ContainedintheTalmudandOtherRabbinicalWritings.TranslatedfromtheHightDutch.[inEnglish].London1732.
Steinsaltz,Adin.BeggarsandPrayers:AdinSteinsaltzRetellstheTalesofRabbiNachmanofBratslav[inEnglish].TranslatedbyYehudaHanegbi.NewYork:BasicBooks,1979.
Sternhartz,Nathan.ChayeyMoharan[inHebrew].Lemberg1863.———.SichotHaran[inHebrew].Jerusalem:EvenShtiya,2011[1850].Strauss,WalterA.OntheThresholdofaNewKabbalah:Kafka'sLaterTales.NewYork:
PeterLang,1988.Tocqueville,Alexisde."TheOldRegimeandtheFrenchRevolution."GardenCity,N.Y.:
Doubleday,1955.Trachtenberg,Joshua.JewishMagicandSuperstition,aStudyinFolkReligion[inEnglish].
NewYork:Behrman'sJewishBookHouse,1939.Urban,Martina.AestheticsofRenewal:MartinBuber'sEarlyRepresentationofHasidismas
Kulturkritik[inEnglish].Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008.
270
Veblen,Thorstein."TheIntellectualPre-EminenceofJewsinModernEurope."PoliticalScienceQuarterly,34,no.1(Mar.,1919):33-42.
Weiss,Joseph.MehkarimBa-HasidutBraslav[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1974.
———."ToratHa-DialektikaVe-Ha-EmunaLe-RabbiNachmanMi-Braslav."HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,1951.
Wilensky,Mordecai.HasidimU-Mitnagdim:Le-ToldotHa-PulmusShe-Benehem[inHebrew].Yerushalayim:MosadByalik,1970.
Williams,Raymond.CultureandSociety,1780-1950[inEnglish].NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1958.
———.WritinginSociety[inEnglish].London:Verso,1983.Wiskind-Elper,Ora.TraditionandFantasyintheTalesofRebNahmanofBratslav[in
English].Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1998.Wolfson,Elliot.ThroughaSpeculumThatShines:VisionandImaginationinMedievalJewish
Mysticism[inEnglish].Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994.Wolfson,Elliot"IntheMirroroftheDream:BorgesandthePoeticsofKabbalah."Jewish
QuarterlyReview104,no.3(2014):362-79.Yovel,Yirmiyahu.TheOtherWithin:TheMarranos:SplitIdentityandEmergingModernity
[inEnglish].Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,2009.Zadoff,Noam,andJonathanMeir."TheEmptySpace,SabbateanismandItsMelodies-
JosephWeiss'ReadingofLiqquteiMoharan64."Kabbalah:JournalfortheStudyofJewishMysticalTexts15(2006):197-232.