Ken Frieden - Neglected Origins of Modern Hebrew Prose Hasidic and Maskilic Travel Narratives, Judaizm

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
//-->Syracuse UniversityFrom the SelectedWorks of Ken FriedenJanuary 2009Neglected Origins of Modern Hebrew Prose:Hasidic and Maskilic Travel NarrativesContactAuthorStart Your OwnSelectedWorksNotify Meof New WorkAvailable at:AJS Review33:1 (2009), 3–43© 2009 Association for Jewish Studiesdoi:10.1017/S0364009409000026NEGLECTEDORIGINS OFMODERNHEBREWPROSE:HASIDIC ANDMASKILICTRAVELNARRATIVESbyKen Frieden1The emergence of modern Hebrew literature has too often been represented as astraight line from Enlightenment authors’melizato“Mendele’snusah”in S. Y...Abramovitsh’s fiction.2If we are to move beyond this one-dimensional geometry,we must add additional lines of development: from traditional rabbinic writing inpostmishnaic Hebrew, branching out to hasidic narratives and parodies of hasidicHebrew, and gradually leading toward a more vernacular Hebrew style. Once wehave recognized the inadequacy of the older model, which culminates in hyper-bolic claims for Abramovitsh’s short stories (1886–96), we can better appreciatethe contributions of diverse authors such as R. Nathan (Nosn) Sternharz (1780–1845), Mendel Lefin (1749–1826), and their successors.While conflicting ideologies of the Jewish Enlightenment and of Hasidismare reflected in many of their writings and in scholarship about them, the literarycontributions of these writers have been undervalued and are seldom understood.Accepted wisdom in Hebrew literary history tells us that themaskilimfavored aneobiblical style, which they considered to be“pure”(lashonzahorzeha);in con-. . . .trast, the hasidim wrote a kind of“lowHebrew” or“folkHebrew,” which manynonhasidic readers have scorned for the past two centuries because it was basedon postbiblical Hebrew, included grammatical errors, and was tinged with1. The author thanks the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust, Hebrew University, and Syracuse Uni-versity for their generous support of research in Jerusalem during 2007–2008, without which this papercould not have been written. I have benefited from conversations with Shmuel Werses, Ariel Hirsch-feld, Naomi Seidman, Jonatan Meir, Vera Solomon, and Rebecca Wolpe, as well as from writtenexchanges with Nancy Sinkoff. I was privileged to take part in a yearlong research group,“Towarda New History of Hasidism,” organized by David Assaf and Moshe Rosman at Hebrew University’sInstitute for Advanced Studies. Several participants offered helpful comments on an earlier draft ofthis paper: Ada Rapoport-Albert, Gershon Bacon, Shmuel Feiner, Zvi Mark, Moshe Rosman, ShaulStampfer, and Marcin Wodzinski. I would also like to thank the librarians at the Jewish Nationaland University Library for their assistance while I was working with rare books and manuscripts inJerusalem, and for granting permission to print the facsimile, transcription, and translation thatare included in appendix II and appendix III.2. Hayim Nahman Bialik initiated this one-sided version of literary history in his essays on.“Mendele’snusah.” See Ken Frieden,“‘NusahMendele’ be-mabat bikoreti,”Dappim le-mehkar...be-sifrut14–15 (2006): 89–103.3Ken FriedenYiddish.3This simplistic opposition has seldom been questioned, although somelinguists have challenged the claim made by themaskilimthat they were writing“pure”biblical Hebrew.4Intellectual historians have emphasized the antihasidicpolemics,5and maskilic satires have been studied in depth,6but other literarygenres have been neglected. Moreover, not allmaskilimembraced biblicalHebrew andmeliza;Lefin, for example, favored mishnaic Hebrew..The genre of travel narrative merits closer attention,7and we can learn agreat deal from Hebrew narratives of sea travel that were written and translatedat the start of the nineteenth century.8It is significant that, in spite of their3. In English, an outstanding literary history along these lines can be found in Robert Alter’sThe Invention of Hebrew Prose: Modern Fiction and the Language of Realism(Seattle: Universityof Washington Press, 1988), especially chap. 1,“FromPastiche toNusakh.”On“folkHebrew”(‘Ivrit‘amamit),Aharon Ben-Or (Orinovski) writes that“Perlpoints to it as a symbol of barbarismand ignorance, and we value itas the beginning of popular Hebrew,alive and natural.” See AharonBen-Or (Orinovski),Toldot ha-sifrut ha-’Ivrit ha-hadasha(Tel Aviv: Yizreel, 1966), 1:77; cf. Ken.Frieden,“JosephPerl’s Escape from Biblical Epigonism through Parody of Hasidic Writing,”AJSReview29, no. 2 (2005): 265–82.4. Chaim Rabin, for instance, notes that the language of the Haskalah was not as biblical as themaskilimclaimed:“Theability to express nineteenth-century thought in Biblical Hebrew had been builtup in a long process, going back to the early middle ages, in which each generation benefited from thediscoveries of its predecessors. This process included the creation of compounds and new idioms toexpress concepts not found in the Bible, as well as changes in the meaning of Biblical words, whichwere thus fitted to fill gaps in the semantic spectrum. While the forms of the words were Biblical,the syntax ofhaskalahliterature—except for the Biblical idiomatic phrases—is that of a Europeanlanguage.” See Chaim Rabin,“TheContinuum of Modern Literary Hebrew,” inThe Great Transition:The Recovery of the Lost Centers of Modern Hebrew Literature,ed. Glenda Abramson and TudorParfitt (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985), 18.5. See, e.g., Raphael Mahler,Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment: Their Confrontation inGalicia and Poland in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,trans. Eugene Orenstein, Aaron Klein,and Jenny Machlowitz Klein (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985); the Yiddishand (expanded) Hebrew originals were published in 1942 and 1961; see also Mordecai Wilensky,Hasidim u-mitnagdim: le-toldot ha-pulmus she-beineihem ba-shanim 1772–1815(Jerusalem: Mosad.Bialik, 1970), vols. 1–2. Another representative earlier work is Avraham Rubinstein’s introductionto his edition of Joseph Perl’s‘Almahut kat ha-hasidim/Uiber[sic]das Wesen der Sekte Chassidim.(Jerusalem: Israeli Academy, 1977). Among excellent current books on the ideology of the Haskalah,see Nancy Sinkoff,Out of the Shtetl: Making Jews Modern in the Polish Borderlands(Providence, RI:Brown University Judaic Studies, 2004); and Shmuel Feiner,Haskalah and History: The Emergence ofa Modern Jewish Historical Consciousness,trans. Chaya Naor and Sondra Silverston (Oxford: LittmanLibrary of Jewish Civilization, 2002); Feiner’s Hebrew original was published in 1990.6. Numerous scholars—such as Israel Weinlös, Shmuel Werses, Khone Shmeruk, Dan Miron,Gershon Shaked, Moshe Pelli, Yehuda Friedlander, Jeremy Dauber, and Jonatan Meir—have writtenabout Enlightenment satire in Hebrew and Yiddish prose, including studies of Aharon Halle-Wolfsohn,Joseph Perl, I. B. Levinsohn, S. Y. Abramovitsh, and others.7. See Moshe Pelli,“TheLiterary Genre of the Travelogue in Hebrew Haskalah Literature:Shmuel Romanelli’s Masa Ba’rav,”Modern Judaism11, no. 2 (1991): 241–60.8. For an overview of sea travel narratives in Hebrew and Yiddish, see Rebecca Wolpe,“TheSea Voyage Narrative as an Educational Tool in the Early Haskalah” (master’s thesis, Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem, 2006); in Hebrew, see her article“Giltaet America,” special issue,Davka:’erez.Yiddish ve-tarbuta,no. 1 (July 2006): 30–31.4Hasidic and Maskilic Travel Narrativesideological disparities, both hasidic and maskilic authors actively contributed tothe evolution of this popular genre. R. Nathan was a pathbreaking author in hisown right, apart from his role as R. Nahman of Bratslav’s scribe, and his 1815account of R. Nahman’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land was a milestone of sortsin Hebrew literary history. In a different vein and across a cultural divide,Lefin’s translations from German (ca. 1815–23), based on Joachim HeinrichCampe’s stories of adventure at sea, are stylistically as significant as any originalHebrew prose of the time. While R. Nathan worked from oral Yiddish sources andLefin translated from printed German texts, a kind of indirect dialogue took placebetween their Hebrew publications. This battle of books expressed contrary ideol-ogies and the authors’ efforts to win over readers. Both writers contributed to theevolution of modern Hebrew narrative in ways that are seldom acknowledged byliterary historians.Alongside the well-known ideological encounters, then, literary skirmishestook place. From the standpoint of literary history, Lefin and R. Nathan were twoleading figures in the intertextual battleground of early nineteenth-century Hebrewprose. Their competing narratives of sea voyage tested the authors’ ability andreadiness to convey concrete descriptions of nature in Hebrew. At the sametime, their travel literature conveyed attitudes toward natural science, geography,and the non-Jewish world.In spite of obvious differences, Lefin and R. Nathan had much in common.Because R. Nathan was raised in an antihasidic family in Nemirov, his earlyHebrew education may not have been so different from that of Lefin inSatanov. Neither was an original thinker in his own right; both responded to inspi-ration from other sources. The turning point for Lefin came when he met MosesMendelssohn and his circle during a sojourn in Berlin in 1780–84, whereasR. Nathan’s life changed after he met R. Nahman in 1802. There was a widegap between their goals, as between their intellectual and religious milieux, yetsome of their literary means were similar.As a basic premise, I assume the relevance of Harold Bloom’s ideas of inter-textuality and literary influence, circling around the question, how do authorsexperience“theanxiety of influence” and attempt to achieve“strength”in relationto their precursors and contemporary rivals?9Joseph Perl’sMegale temirin(1819),his posthumously published manuscripts, and hisBohen zadik(1838) show clearly. .that Perl was jealous of the success of hasidic works such asShivhei ha-Besht.10At.the same time, R. Nathan read his opponents’ works, feared their criticisms, anddirectly attacked specific authors, usually without mentioning their names.9. See, e.g., Harold Bloom,The Anxiety of Influence(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973);and idem,A Map of Misreading(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).10. See Joseph Perl,Megale temirin(Vienna: Anton Strauss, 1819), introduction by Perl’s fic-tional persona Ovadia ben Pesahaya, 2b and letter 78; idem,‘Almahut kat ha-hasidim,ed. Avraham..Rubinstein (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1977), 77; idem,Bohen zadik..(Prague: Landau, 1838), 24; and see also Perl’s unpublished introduction to the Yiddish version ofMegale temirin,“YosefPerls hakdome tsum‘Megaletemirin,’”YIVO bleter13 (1930): 566–76.5Ken FriedenIt is also helpful to draw from Linda Hutcheon’s studies of parody. Hutcheonshows how parody, understood in its most general sense, functions in the form of“repetitionwith difference”:“Acritical distance is implied between the back-grounded text being parodied and the new incorporating work, a distanceusually signaled by irony.”11Although ridiculing parody is not central to thenarratives that are analyzed in this paper, it is possible to interpret some of theseworks—including translations and adaptations—as genre parodies. In someinstances, they reappropriated the genre of travel narrative in ways that alteredHebrew and Yiddish literary history.There are ample historical clues of possible connections between the Hebrewnarratives of sea travel written by R. Nathan and Lefin. As Haim Liberman andMendel Piekarz show, hasidic authors left compelling accounts of R. Nahman’sand R. Nathan’s meetings withmaskilimin Uman. Before and after 1810,R. Nahman and R. Nathan met with Haikl Hurwitz (1749–1822) and his sonHirsh Ber Hurwitz (1785–1857).12The most astonishing record of these meetingsappears in Avraham Hazan’sKokhevei’or.Hazan writes, for instance,.ל”ז ת”נרהמל ש”כמו ש”נאל םיבוהא םידידי[םיליכשמה]ויה ל”זיבר תריטפ ירחאוטיזיוו ול היה ןימואב היהש םעפ לכב כ”ע םמע רבדיש ל”זיברמ יוויצ ול היה ל”ז ת”נרהמו.ונממ ל”זיבר הצר המ,רמאו קעצש דע כ”כ תולודג תוריקחב םמע סנכנ א”פו,םמע רבדו םלצאAfter the departure of our Rebbe, of blessed memory, they [themaskilim]weredear friends of our Breslov circle, and especially of R. Nathan z”l. And R. Nathanhad a command from our Rebbe z”l that he should speak with them, and so everytime he was in Uman, he had a visit at their house and spoke with them. Andonce he entered into such deep philosophical questions [hakirot gedolot]with.them that he cried out, What did our Rebbe want from him?13During the period in which these meetings occurred, sea travel accounts became apopular genre in Hebrew literature, and the Jewish community of Uman provideda direct link between maskilic and hasidic travel writing. In 1817, two years after11. Linda Hutcheon,A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms(New York: Methuen, 1985), 32.12. On R. Nahman and themaskilimof Uman, see Haim Liberman’s article in Yiddish andHebrew, respectively:“R.Nakhman Bratslaver un di Umaner maskilim,”YIVO Bleter29 (1947):201–19; and“R.Nahman mi-Breslav u-maskilei Uman,” inOhel Rahel(New York: Liberman,..1984), 310–28. Mendel Piekarz continues in the direction suggested by Liberman’s analysis inHasidut Breslav: perakim be-hayei meholelah, bi-khetaveiha u-vi-sefiheiha,2nd ed. (Jerusalem:....Mossad Bialik, 1995), chap. 2. See also Shmuel Feiner,“Be-’emunahbilvad! Ha-pulmus shel rebNathan mi-Nemirov neged ha-ateizm ve-ha-haskalah,” inMehkerei hasidut,vol. 15 ofMehkerei Yer-...ushalaim be-mahshevet yisra’el,ed. Immanuel Etkes, David Assaf and Joseph Dan (Jerusalem:.Hebrew University, 1999), esp. 93–97. Other pertinent primary texts may be found in AvrahamGottlober’sZikhronot u-ma‘asiot,ed. Reuven Goldberg (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1976), e.g., 74–75.13. Avrham Hazan,Kokhevei’or(first published 1933), ed. Shmuel Ha-Levi Hurvitz (Jerusa-lem: Hasidei Breslov, 1987), sec.“Sippurimnifla’im,” 8. Cited and discussed by Liberman,“R..Nakhman Bratslaver un di Umaner maskilim”; Piekarz,Hasidut Breslav;and Feiner,“Be-’emunah.bilvad!” All translations in this article are my own.6 [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
  • zanotowane.pl
  • doc.pisz.pl
  • pdf.pisz.pl
  • klobuckfatima.xlx.pl