Dan Miron. From Continuity to Contiguity: Toward a New Jewish Literary Thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010. 560 pp. $65.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8047-6200-7. Reviewed by Itay Zutra Published on H-Judaic (November, 2011) Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion) Dan Miron’s From Continuity to Contiguity: homogenous aspects of Jewish literature stretch‐ Toward a New Literary Jewish Thinking is a mas‐ ing from the Bible to modern times and tran‐ terpiece of literary and cultural analysis. The se‐ scending geographical, cultural, and linguistic nior Israeli critic and historian of Hebrew and boundaries. Miron’s pluralistic notion of contigui‐ Yiddish literature from Columbia University aims ty tries to bypass the continuity fallacy so that in‐ high: to introduce new theory to the study of mod‐ stead of looking at what connects Jewish litera‐ ern Jewish literature in all languages. It might be ture one should pay attention to what separates asked, why write such a monumental book in a and discontinues it. postmodern era engaged in deconstruction, disin‐ Miron’s journey towards literary contiguity tegration, and hybridity? It seems that the time begins in a thorough--one would even argue too for positivistic definite histories of literature is thorough--polemic with previous generations of long gone. Miron admits that a book such as his scholars who may have little to say to contempo‐ has not been written in any language for the last rary readers. The writings of the Israeli critics few decades. The book laments the disappearance Dov Sadan (1902-89), Barukh Kurzweil (1907-72), of strong meta-narratives while at the same time and Shimon Halkin (1889-87) and the Yiddish crit‐ rejecting them. ics Baal Makhshoves (pen name of Israel Isidor Miron’s rationale for the revival of such a dis‐ Elyashev, 1873–1924), Shmuel Niger (pseudonym course is, therefore, paradoxical: he wishes to of Shmuel Tsharny, 1883–1955), and Borekh write the most continuous book of literary conti‐ Rivkin (1883-1945), to name but a few, are refuted guity. The two opposing poles of this book are con‐ one by one, exposing their intellectual limitations tinuity and contiguity. Continuity, according to and ideological biases. At the end it all comes Miron, is a concept shared by scholars of Hebrew down to what Miron suspects stands in the back‐ and Yiddish literature to define the unifying and ground of all continuity theories: the naïve belief H-Net Reviews that there is a unified Jewish literature written by by Jews in predominantly non-Jewish languages Jews, for Jews, mostly yet not exclusively in Jew‐ for Jewish and non-Jewish audiences alike. ish languages, and that this literature embodies a Sadan’s nationally oriented approach demanded specific sense of Jewishness that can be only un‐ that a Jewish text address primarily Jewish read‐ derstood within a Jewish context. ers in a Jewish context. If the approach were fol‐ Miron’s starting point for his critique of the lowed only marginal literature written by Ger‐ continuity fallacy is the abnormal condition of man or Russian assimilated Jews in the nine‐ Jewish literature in the Diaspora. Jewish authors, teenth century by and for people who were still both religious and secular, wrote in remote not well integrated into the general public would places, in various languages, and under different be read. Only in this limited transitional phase cultural influences. For scholars of Jewish litera‐ was it possible for Jewish writers to write Jewish ture to compare, say medieval Hebrew poetry in literature in a non-Jewish language for Jewish Spain to Yiddish modernist poetry in twentieth- readers. The minute Jews made their way into the century New York is by far more complicated major centers of Western culture this literature than it is for an English-speaking college student was forgotten. to compare Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shake‐ Miron’s critique of literary continuity is sea‐ speare to T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound. Miron brings soned with a strong sense of discontinuity. Not this approach ad absurdum, especially in his dis‐ only does he expose the discontinuous aspects of cussion of the concept of “Sifrut Yisrael” (the liter‐ Jewish continuity (nothing unheard of in today’s ature of Israel) in the Zionist thought of Dov post-national discourse), he also points out the Sadan. According to Sadan (who apparently had a historical necessity of the continuity approach superb memory and forgot nothing), one should that enabled scholars like Sadan or Kurzweil to read, compare, and echo synchronically all forms represent in an orderly fashion the blurry nature of Jewish creativity: biblical commentary, Talmu‐ of the modern Jewish literary complex. When dic homiletics, Hasidic hagiography, modern Yid‐ Kurzweil published his magnum opus Sifruteinu dish literature, and Judeo-Arabic folklore. Sadan hachadasha--hemshech o mahapecha?(Our New sadly acknowledged that in modern times this Literature--A Continuation or a Revolution?) in majestic intertextuality was shattered, making 1959 this discourse was already passé in the eyes room for crisis and amnesia. However, Sadan was of contemporary Israeli intellectuals. Kurzweil, a optimistic when he asserted that upon Zionism’s product of Central European enlightenment and victory all aspects of Jewish writing would even‐ romanticism, was not able to see beyond the trag‐ tually fnd their right place in the grand mosaic of ic dialectics of revolution and continuation. Mod‐ Jewish literature through reliable Hebrew transla‐ ern Hebrew literature reached its peak in the pre- tions. statehood works of Chaim Nachman Bialik and Miron, who was Sadan’s student, remains to‐ Sh. Y. Agnon that expressed the transcendental tally unconvinced, showing how this seemingly tension between tradition and modernity, faith heterogeneous approach reaches a dead end not and heresy, exile and homecoming. Israeli writers only because of its rickety and idiosyncratic completely liberated from these outdated formu‐ methodology (how can one study such diverse lations were of no interest to him. Literary nor‐ texts using the same interpretative tools?), but malcy is what, Miron asserts, made the Jewish more so because it asks the wrong questions. This meta-literary discourse in the State of Israel su‐ is mostly felt, according to Miron, in what Sadan’s perfluous. cartography leaves out, which is literature written 2 H-Net Reviews The frst 302 pages of this book are dedicated how writers of different backgrounds and credos to the debunking of continuity. The last 196 pages shape their own sense of Jewish identity. If they (the book is not well balanced between continuity say they are Jewish they might as well be and it is and contiguity) consist of Miron’s most fruitful up to scholars to explore what that means. The achievement--the creation of the fexible concept theory just follows the literature. And this brings of contiguity out of the more rigid notion of conti‐ us to why this book was written in English. At frst nuity (the sound resemblance of the two words is glance it does seem puzzling that Miron invests so telling). The prominence of Jewish authors writ‐ much effort in a polemic with dead scholars who ing in non-Jewish national languages (today most‐ were rarely translated into English. The reason ly in English) is for Miron the ultimate proof for becomes clear when Miron as an Israeli admits the irrelevancy of Jewish literary canonicity (here defeat; since particular Jewish literature in pre‐ he is in sharp disagreement with Ruth Wisse’s The dominantly Jewish languages (Miron also ac‐ Modern Jewish Canon, 2000). The impossibility of knowledges the existence of Israeli Arab writings a coherent canon for modern Jewish literature is in Hebrew) is on the decline and diasporic litera‐ for Miron not a liability but a liberating challenge. ture in Europe and America on the rise, the per‐ The fnal chapters of the book illustrate major fect haven for productive Jewish meta-literary trends of Jewish contiguity in the works of Frantz narratives is America. Dan Miron has written a Kafka and Sholem Aleichem. Miron views Kafka contagious book about literary contiguity. The no‐ as the modern Jewish writer par excellence pre‐ tion of contiguity is catchy; however we must re‐ cisely because he rejects national continuity. As a member that while previous generations of critics scholar immersed in Jewish knowledge Miron is noticed only the unifying aspects of Jewish texts, surprisingly ready to assert that Kafka’s ambiva‐ contemporary readers, armored with Miron’s lent, reductionist, and at times negative percep‐ compelling book, should be advised not to tion of being Jewish (Judesein) might be the only overemphasize what separates them. Continuity somewhat possible metaphor to define the Jewish and contiguity are two sides of the same coin. condition. For Kafka being Jewish is to live on the margins, powerless and weak, denied any sub‐ stantial influence on life and destiny, but with the remarkable ability to authentically reflect on this crisis. And who in Jewish literature is the most contiguous with Kafka? Not the Zionist Agnon, who was incorrectly crowned (by Sadan among others) as the legal heir of the Kafkaesque, but rather the nineteenth-century Yiddish humorist Sholem Aleichem, who shared with Kafka a basic suspicion of laws, norms, and ideologies, which Miron argues is the essence of being modernly Jewish. One does not have to fully agree with this un‐ orthodox approach to Jewish literature (how can Kafka be the greatest modern Jewish writer if he wished to annihilate his Jewishness?) to notice its usefulness in our time and age. It simply shows 3 H-Net Reviews If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic Citation: Itay Zutra.