yitzhak lewis - columbia university

WritingtheMargin:RabbiNachmanofBraslav,JorgeLuisBorges

andtheQuestionofJewishWriting

YitzhakLewis

Submittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe

requirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophy

intheGraduateSchoolofArtsandSciences

COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY

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.

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

SectionThree:ANarratologyoftheMargin 209

Chapter5:HistoriaUniversal 214

TemporalThresholds 224

TheAppearanceofaSecret 237

AttheSecret’sThreshold 245

Afterword 255

InConclusion:TheQuestionofJewishWriting 258

Bibliography 261

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.

Therehavebeenmanycolleaguesandfriendswhosethoughtfulcommentsandgenerous

energyinreadinganddiscussingdraftsofthisworkhavebeeninvaluableinmywork.Iam

gratefulortheircomraderyandengagement.MyfriendsandcolleaguesattheColumbia

UniversityJewishandIsraelStudiesGraduateStudentAssociation,myfellowstudentsat

theCardozoLawSchoolGraduateStudentFellowshipinJewishLawandContemporary

Civilization,andcolleaguesandteachersattheVanLeerInstituteinJerusalem.Tothe

DepartmentofMiddleEastern,SouthAsianandAfricanStudiesandtheInstituteforIsrael

andJewishStudiesatColumbia,mydeepestgratitudeforalltheirmentalandmaterial

support,forobligingmyambitionsandsupportingmymotivations.

Tomyfamily

fortheirenduranceandsupport,

whosefirmdemandsforbalancekeepmebothsaneandfocused,

mythanksandlove.

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.

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

Thefirsttwosectionsofthestudydealwiththesetwokeymoments.Individualchapters

withinthemofferseparatediscussionsofR.NachmanandBorges.Thusdiscretechapters

ontheirparticularwritingandreceptioncometogethertoarticulateabroaderproblematic

of“modernwriting.”Thefirstpointofjuxtapositionispoetic,andaddressesashared

categoryintheirdistinctarticulationsasexceptions,thatofwriting“cabbalisticstories.”

Thesecondpointofjuxtapositionisdiscursive,andreadscentraltextsoftheirpresentation

(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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

ontheThreshold.”Eachoftheseopensbydramatizingthecollapseofaworld.Itthen

proceedstonarratethesituation,inwhichthere-creationofaworldismadepossible.Itis

aworldthatrequiresendlessinterpretationandthatrepeatsitselfendlessly.Thoughthe

eruditionofbothR.NachmanandBorgesisimpressive,there-creationofaworldwhere

onehascollapseddoesnotrequirethemtoread.Itrequiresthemtowrite,tonarrate.In

thepagesthatfollowIreadthroughtheworldtheycreateandtheplaceoftheJudaicwithin

Itisconjecturedthatthisbravenewworldistheworkofasecretsociety

[…]Thisplanissovastthateachwriter'scontributionisinfinitesimal.24

24Borges,Labyrinths:SelectedStories&OtherWritings,24.

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.

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.

“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.]

rudimentary.11Forthemostpart,thetermistakentohaveacommonsensicalmeaning,

whichisalmostexclusivelyborrowedfromGershomScholem.12Theresultisthatmany

studiesendupinadvertently—evenunknowingly—takingsidesintheongoingdebate

about“Cabbala”asanobjectofacademicstudy.Indeed,inthecontextofthemore

specializeddebateonJewishMysticism,theadjective“cabbalistic”seemquiteoutofplace

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Itwillthenproceedtoaskwhattheroleoftheseallusionsisinthewritingsofthesetwo

figures,andsuggestawayinwhichtoreadthem.Questionsofintentionandmethodwill

thusbeafocusofthissection,aswillanefforttoshiftthediscussionaboutthesetwo

writersawayfromconsideringthemannerinwhichtheyshouldbereadandtoward

questionsabouthowtheysawthemselvesaswriters,engagingasimilarproblematicin

theiractivityofwriting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.).

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.]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

begintobehuman,Jewish,Argentine?InthenextchapterwewillseeScholemandBuber

representthisimpossibilityofbeginningasaparticularproblemof“cabbalisticwriting.”

HisreadingofScholemandBuberwillhelpBorgesformulatehisownroleasawriter.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

andEurope(whichwewilltakeupthenextchapter).Forthepresent,thepointto

emphasizeisthatBuberfillsthisin-betweenspacewiththerichculturaltraditionof

Hasidicnarrative.Infillingthisspace,Bubertoomusttacklethequestionsofauthorship

andtraditionthatBorgesismostconcernedwithinhisownreflectionsonliteratureatthe

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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-ÒlamHa-Natsit:Merhav,Guf,Safah(Hefah;Tel-Aviv:Hotsaatha-sefarimshelUniversitatHefah;SifriyatMaàriv,2002).ForarelatedculturalhistoryofGermanyintheinterwarperiod,see:Li-HeyotBe-RepublikatVaimar(TelAviv:Àmòved,2007).Formoreonlatenineteenthcenturyanti-Semitismasaresponsetoperceptionsofafailedintegration,see:BrianPorter,WhenNationalismBegantoHateImaginingModernPoliticsinNineteenthCenturyPoland(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).FormoreonthechangingattitudestowardstheJewsofGermanyduringthelongcenturyofemancipationsee:DoronAvraham,in:BoazNeumann,RoniHirsh-Ratzkovsky,andGaliliShahar,eds.,HistoryahBe-LoNahat:BenYehudimLe-Germanim(TelAviv;Yerushalayim:Àmòved;MekhonLeoBek,2012).

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

betweenlocationthatisendlesslyrecurringandrepeatedlyopened,inaseriesofnarrative

departuresfromtheepistemologicalgapsthatstructureit.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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).

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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,

———."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.

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.

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.

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:Àmòved,2007.———.ReiyatHa-ÒlamHa-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.

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.

———.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.

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.

yitzhak lewis - columbia university

Documents

settlement success stories the lewis river relicensing...

3.4 covalent bonds and lewis structures - columbia · pdf...

yitzhak rabin (1922-1995): another victim of zealotry

deborah lewis university of south carolina at columbia...

yitzhak epstein - a hidden question

epilepsy yitzhak schiller md phd dept of neurology rambam...

brenda lewis obituary - amazon s3 · 2016-03-20 · mae...

lewis and clark expedition st. louis, mo fort mandan rocky...

annual conference of the federal audit executive council...

spinoza’s deiﬁcation of existence yitzhak y. melamed ·...

rabbi yitzhak israeli 718-531-8076 rabbi yermi halevy 347

hussein ibish: the life and crimes of yitzhak rabin

yitzhak shami: ethnicity as an unresolved...

kathleen fisher at&t labs research yitzhak mandelbaum, david...

the teachings of harav avraham yitzhak hacohen kook

yitzhak tor curriculum vitae - tor lab...

lower columbia salmon recovery and fish & wildlife ... ·...

chiasm and meaning in 1 chronicles - jhsonline.org ·...

utr. prog. thursd. yitzhak apeloig

sample chapter r yitzhak kaduri