Az10 Letters

orrespondence Hebrew Literature should be viewed better as monism, diverse embodiments of a single cos- To the Editors: mic power. However, his astounding There are two ways to create and assertion that there is no “story” to be study an “ethnic” or a “national” lit- found in that eternal, static absolute erature: One is to focus on the group is completely false. The sources for of writers and works who identify much of ancient Indian monism, the themselves as being of that people, Upanishads, are told almost entirely and look at the diversities and com- through narrative. Stories are told to mon threads between them. The other illustrate philosophical principles; is to identify the common thread that principles are enunciated through the binds these writers together, and ex- frame of narratives. Moreover, ancient clude examples which do not fit the Indian literature is replete with “testa- thread, defining them as “outside the ments” of encounter between personal people,” or in some other way “dis- gods and human beings, as well as eased.” There are flaws to both ap- between human beings and monistic proaches. In the first, the boundaries principles. It is clear that Inbari has can become overly fuzzy as to what not read much of ancient Indian lit- constitutes a literature properly be- erature carefully. Current literary de- longing to that people. The second bate about the status of “history” and can gravely distort facts for the sake of “historical consciousness” in India intellectual purity, in the attempt to takes place at a much subtler, and draw a fixed and stable boundary more interesting, level. where none exists. Moreover, Inbari’s repetition of the Assaf Inbari’s article (“Towards a tired (and now challenged) dichotomy Hebrew Literature,” Azure 9, Spring of “pagan” time being cyclical and 2000) suffers gravely from the flaws Hebrew time being “linear” creates of the second approach. We will fo- such a large generalization that com- cus, first, on his depiction of the an- parison itself becomes an uninterest- cient world (particularly India) and, ing list of cultural stereotypes. More second, on his portrayal of contem- recent writing on ancient India shows porary literature. that its literature engages in the very To begin with the ancient world: dialectic between the individual and Inbari rightly asserts that polytheism the collective that Inbari approves of. winter 5761 / 2001 • 3 Moreover, to assert that, contrary last two centuries of research on the to the biblical authors, Indian authors history of the Hebrew Bible. More harbored a love for philosophical ab- specifically, it ignores the Bible’s rela- straction and individualism entirely tion to the cultures of the Ancient ignores a huge genre of Indian texts, Near East—and especially to the of which we can name only a few. textual and narrative traditions of The Indian epics of the Ramayana neighboring cultures. Inbari’s asser- and the Mahabharata (ten times the tion that “pagan texts” are about the size of the Bible) narrate the exploits individual, but the Bible is about the and duties of dynasties and kings; the spiritual and material restoration of Indian text of the Arthasastra outlines the Jewish polity in the land of Israel, the world of ancient Indian politics can only work when one completely and bureaucracy. All of these are clas- ignores the connections between the sics in Indian literature; Inbari would Bible and the other literatures of the do well to read them before he makes Ancient Near East. claims to Hebrew uniqueness. Yet the complexity and the gran- There are indeed fascinating com- deur of the various and varied bibli- parisons between biblical literary tech- cal narrative, which shares so much nique and that of its non-biblical with other Near Eastern “pagan” lit- counterparts which students of com- eratures, does not make it impure. parative literature and religion are now Biblical literature need not have a sin- exploring—about the relationship be- gle essence to be powerful. Its exhor- tween narrative and philosophy (both tation to Jewish national pride and powerfully present in the literatures restoration, a warning against “Hel- of ancient worlds); about the role of lenism” and nihilism, is only one of etymologies and punning; about the many possible characteristics of bibli- role of dynasty and lineage; and so cal literature. forth. These themes are not the mis- Yet Inbari’s article is more con- leadingly generalized ones that Inbari cerned with the contemporary Israeli engages; they are based on careful, literary scene, and it is best to turn linguistically informed, reading of now to the contemporary period. De- other cultures’ texts. crying the “melancholy that has domi- What about texts closer to the nated Israeli literature since 1967” (an Bible than those of India or Greece? assertion that would shock the very Inbari’s assertion about pagan narra- large readership of contemporary tives (and the lack thereof) contra- Hebrew fiction), and blaming that dicts without basis the findings of the “melancholy” on the New Left, the 4 • Azure student revolts, the sexual revolution, continually responded. Brenner was and the wave of protests against the the martyred defender of the Jewish Vietnam War, Inbari calls for a re- settlements in Jaffa, a martyrdom turn to what he describes as the “his- which earned him a place in the pan- torical, national, deed-based… prose” theon of Israeli national identity. of the Bible. But all of this goes unmentioned. The only writer who escapes In- For Inbari, it is Brenner, not Agnon, bari’s censure, and seems to model who is the most widely emulated of this national, deed-based biblical Israeli authors, and as today’s Israeli prose, is S.Y. Agnon. According to authors disappoint Inbari, they are Inbari, Agnon was the only author part of the “decades-long process of writing in the Hebrew language in alienation from the Hebrew poetic the twentieth century who produced tradition.” It is the tradition of Bren- anything that can be properly called a ner and the ensuing “alienation” “Hebrew literature.” Agnon meets which must be blamed. Agnon him- Inbari’s requisite standards of purity self would have strenuously objected because his stories are in a “closed, to the Agnon-Brenner dichotomy. ‘communal’ and particularist style, Agnon survived Brenner by fifty years which stands in marked contrast to and never expressed anything but the universal communicativeness to the highest regard for the older and which the artistic, individualistic more revolutionary writer. This di- Western narrative aspires.” Contrast- chotomy is a modern expression of ed with Agnon’s “traditional” style is the earlier dichotomy posited by the that of Yosef Haim Brenner, which is author, mentioned above: Between the “intemperate, impatient and at times “national content” of the biblical nar- frenzied.… Unlike Agnon’s language, rative and the “individualistic, anthro- which is infused with tradition, Bren- pocentric worldview” of the Greeks ner’s language is choppy, detached and and other ancient societies. chaotic.” Inbari is right to care about litera- In his assertion of this dichotomy, ture, Hebrew identity, and the crea- Inbari blatantly overlooks the histori- tion of a vibrant, muscular Hebrew cal fact of Brenner’s relationship to literary tradition. He is right to focus Agnon. Brenner was mentor and on Hebrew literature in its relation- advocate of the younger writer. Bren- ship to the cultures surrounding it. ner was the revered cultural figure He is dangerously wrong to create of the Second Aliya who projected the lengthy series of false dichotomies a tone and voice to which Agnon and generalizations which supposedly winter 5761 / 2001 • 5 help to distinguish Hebrew literature Inbari is not satisfied with the sim- from others. Our points are best punc- ple meaning of these terms, however. tuated by the testimony of Inbari’s “All of these definitions ignore the supposed exemplar, S.Y. Agnon. In a unique literary qualities that form the 1962 address in Jerusalem, Agnon heart of the Hebrew literary tradi- spoke of his literary influences, and of tion,” he maintains. “Hebrew litera- his love for the world storytelling tra- ture, for my purposes, refers to litera- dition. He enumerated for his listen- ture that employs a particular kind of ers some of his favorite authors. First poetics—that is, a certain artistic strat- among them was Homer. egy for writing—of which the biblical narrative constitutes the first, but by Shalom Goldman no means only, example.” Department of Hebrew Literature Arguments about the poetics of Laurie L. Patton Hebrew literature through the ages Department of Early Indian are legitimate, and can be fascinating. Religions But why change the accepted terms? Emory University In order to make the case that authors should write in the spirit of biblical poetics, there is no need to claim that To the Editors: any other writing is not “Hebrew.” Assaf Inbari’s essay, “Towards a He- The Greeks created the tragedy and brew Literature,” builds its argument the comedy—but neither Shake- on a new definition of “Hebrew lit- speare’s tragedies nor Moliere’s com- erature,” one that is contrived and edies can plausibly be called “Greek demagogic. literature.” Similarly, if Greek authors The common use of the term, ob- were to begin writing poetry in the viously, refers to language: “Hebrew spirit of haiku, readers would pick up literature” is usually taken to refer to on the literary influence, but who works written in the Hebrew language, would say it was not Greek literature? whether or not they were written by As opposed to instrumental music and Jews, and regardless of their content. visual art, which are defined purely in The Jewish literature in Ladino, Yid- terms of their style, literature has a dish, English, Arabic, French and other language, which profoundly influences languages is called “Jewish literature,” the way its works are disseminated and religious literature is usually and by whom they are read.

Load more