The Parable and Its Lesson: A Novella (Stanford Studies in Jewish History and C)

by S. Agnon

  ‘Ir umelo’ah, I would argue, is one of the most extraordinary responses to the murder of European Jewry in modern Jewish writing, yet the very connection of the work to the Holocaust is fraught and not entirely self-evident. On the one hand, the book as a whole is dedicated—on a separate page following the title page—to a city that flourished from the time of its founding “until the arrival of the vile, defiled and depraved enemy, and the madmen who abetted them, and brought about utter annihilation.” On the other hand, neither the Nazi liquidations nor even the rehearsal for them in World War One is represented in the stories, which do not reach beyond the nineteenth century. So despite the fact the stories are occasionally punctuated with invective against the Nazis and their role in bringing about the end of Jewish Buczacz, anything related to that destruction is kept from the representational field of the work. The potential for confusion created by this paradox can be illustrated, with the reader’s indulgence, by a personal testimony. Many years ago, when I was planning the research that led to my Ḥurban: Responses to Catastrophe in Hebrew Literature, I was examining Israeli literature for reactions to the Holocaust. Of course, I looked first to Agnon as the preeminent Hebrew writer who, unlike many of his Israeli counterparts, did not turn away from the diaspora and its religious culture. Yet, apart from several unconnected stories, I saw little at the time that would dissuade me from the conclusion that the literary world of the master was fixed in its characteristic modalities in the decades before the Holocaust and that a substantial reorientation toward the catastrophe could not be expected. It is clear to me now that I was wrong. What blinded me was a narrow conception of what it means to respond to catastrophe. To qualify as such, I mistakenly believed that a work of literature must represent the horrors of destruction, as well as depicting modes of survival and reconstruction. Because Agnon had not engaged the horrors, his work could not be thought of in any substantial sense as being part of Holocaust literature.

  Reading ‘Ir umelo’ah has taught me three things. First, contending with the burden of the Holocaust was exactly what Agnon was doing in the postwar decades. The crucial story “Hasiman” [The Sign], which Emunah Yaron placed at the conclusion of ‘Ir umelo’ah, is actually a consecration story that introduces the project as a whole.8 The story describes the holiday of Shavuot in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiyot in 1943, when the narrator, a stand-in for the author, is informed about the murder of the Jews of Buczacz. Late that night in the synagogue, the narrator undergoes a mystical experience in which the great medieval poet Solomon Ibn Gabirol appears to him and composes a sacred poem to perpetuate the memory of the Jews of Buczacz. The implication is that the narrator, who is deeply connected to the tradition of liturgical poetry, will now take this burden on himself and continue the task of memorialization is his own, storytelling mode. The epic cycle of Buczacz stories that took shape in these years is a direct result of that self-imposed imperative.

  Second, Agnon makes a principled choice not to traffic in atrocity and instead devote his resources to reimagining the spiritual life of Galician Jewry in its fullest vigor. In a profound sense, those spiritual achievements were decimated long before the Nazis arrived on the scene; the twin forces of secularization and the terrors of World War One and the Russian Civil War saw to that. The Holocaust was the satanic coup de grace that provided a tragic point of retrospection for taking stock of Buczacz and all it represented in the centuries of its greatness when, as the narrator so often observes in ‘Ir umelo’ah, “Buczacz was Buczacz.” This reimagining is aware of itself as a literary endeavor, an artifice that knows it cannot bring back the dead or replace them. At the same time, it makes the claim that it is within the capabilities of the literary imagination to create a simulacrum of the fullness of that lost world, and that this act of creation/re-creation, both in its process and its product, is the true response we must make to catastrophe.

  Finally, Agnon’s practice in ‘Ir umelo’ah has within it the power to require us to rethink our most basic notions about Holocaust literature. It has been axiomatic for many that the chief vocation of Holocaust literature is to represent the unspeakable ordeals that were visited upon the murdered victims, the survivors and their children. Without necessarily negating this mode of representation, Agnon declines to pursue it in favor of the imaginative reconstruction of an earlier lost spiritual and cultural plenitude. His motives, I would argue, derive from a deep intuition into the demands Jewish tradition makes on the modern imagination. In addition to giving voice to grief in the form of lamentation, the classical tradition stressed over time the recouping of the relationship between God and Israel and the restoration and repurification of the image of the destroyed community.9 In a modern era, this restorative impulse works through the literary imagination and takes the form of storytelling. Agnon retells the story of Buczacz as an imperfect but holy community, a qehilah qedoshah. His approach underscores the significance of cultural frameworks in determining responses to the Holocaust.10 Putting complex matters simply, we may say that an exclusive focus on extermination, atrocity and the death-in-life of survivors presents the Holocaust as the final vitiation of Enlightenment European culture. Focusing instead on the substance of the religious-cultural civilization of the past, even if the integrity of that civilization was severely compromised by the time of its destruction, presents the Holocaust as a rupture within the internal relations of the Jewish people and its history.

  But does not such an imaginative program of restitution inevitably lead to an idealization of the lost object? And does the idealization of the past serve or traduce creative survival in the future? A famous example of this kind of response is Nathan Nata Hanover’s Yeven metsulah [Abyss of Despair], a chronicle of the sufferings of Polish Jewry during the Khmelnitski massacres of 1648–49.11 After a martyrologically tinged account of the horrific ordeals suffered by the Jewish communities of Galicia and the Ukraine, Hanover concludes his work with a eulogy that mourns the greatness that was once Polish Jewry; the slaughtered communities are collectively recalled as systematically embodying the cardinal virtues of Torah, avodah and ma’asim tovim. Agnon is especially aware of Hanover’s chronicle because the consequences of the Khmelnitski massacres play so important a role in the history of Buczacz. Yet when it comes to mounting his own project of remembrance, the option of composing an idyll is one Agnon conspicuously declines. Although idealization is not absent from ‘Ir umelo’ah, it is reconfigured to serve a different purpose. Memorialization, for Agnon, is a set of critical choices and discriminations. In ‘Ir umelo’ah, it is synagogue worship and Torah study that become the signs under which Agnon will set about reimagining the history of Buczacz. It is important to keep in mind that this was only one among a number of schemata Agnon could have chosen. The past could have been recouped around Jewish-gentile relations, or the economic fortunes of the various handicrafts and trades that flourished in the town, or relations between the poor and prosperous. It may seem natural that Agnon would have chosen worship and study, but it remains a choice.

  ‘Ir umelo’ah begins with a description of the town’s study houses and synagogues, their appurtenances and sacred objects and then proceeds to a consideration of the key personalities who held the offices of ḥazzan (cantor), shamash (sexton, beadle), and gabbai (treasurer); accounts of the great rabbis who held sway in Buczacz, as well as tales of anonymous piety, occupy the core of the book. Yet this plan is only a scaffolding; it represents the idealizing framework within which Agnon chooses to perform the memory of Buczacz and present his town in the largest possible way as inscribed within the world of Torah. Woven in and out of this scaffolding, however, are innumerable accounts of professional and scholarly jealousy, internecine commercial rivalries, unchecked acts of cruelty and expropriation by the wealthy, unrewarded acts of righteousness by the poor and lowly, apostasy, criminality, suicide and many other unsavory behaviors.

  As conjured up by Agnon in ‘Ir umelo’ah, the vanished world of B
uczacz can best be understood under the rubric of a norm and deviations from it. Agnon sets the value signature of the work, chooses the periods in the life of Buczacz in which Torah and worship are paramount, fashions a plan for the organization of the stories that foregrounds these institutions and their practitioners and uses the commentary of the volume’s ever-present narrator to articulate and reinforce this moral framework. Yet at the same time, the norm is continually flouted by power, envy and the general intractability of the human heart. ‘Ir umelo’ah is a world in which there is a single moral and spiritual norm alongside an abundance of variegated deviations from that norm. It will not come as a surprise that the deviations more often beguile the reader’s attention than does the norm, and the modal tension between the two accounts for the fascination exerted by the book and for the tensile forces that hold it together.

  Holding together a work made up of more than 140 independent narrative units is not a small challenge. Of the several strategies Agnon uses in his efforts to create coherence in ‘Ir umelo’ah, the most important is the fashioning of a narrator whose voice is present in almost all the stories. Surely this narrator is one of Agnon’s greatest and most distinctive creations, and its arrival on the scene so late in the master’s career has much to tell us about the aesthetic impasses he faced and the solutions he was experimenting with in the years after the war. The narrator of ‘Ir umelo’ah is part chronicler and part impresario. As chronicler, he presents himself as an assiduous student of the history of Buczacz and the arcana of its centuries of spiritual life. He takes advantage of every chance to establish the reliability of his accounts of events in terms of both the accuracy of his information and the objectivity with which it is presented. But make no mistake: although he takes pains to get his facts correct and puncture fanciful myths and legends, this chronicler is not a historian. He is a believing Jew who, though fully aware of the modern world, remains rooted in the circle of traditional piety. He views his function as a belated extension of the pinqas, the register kept by Jewish communities in Europe in which significant events were recorded.12 At the conclusion of Hamashal vehanimshal [The Parable and Its Lesson], the story to be discussed below, the rationale for telling the lengthy tale is based on the fact that the pinqas of Buczacz was destroyed in the war along with the town’s Jews. The extraordinary incidents related in the story were recorded there around the year 1700 in the beautiful hand of the town’s scribe and in the formal eloquence of learned, biblical Hebrew.

  It is now left to the belated narrator to reconstruct and retell the story as best he can and according to his own lights. He is not a communal scribe, but he does follow after the scribe, in his footsteps, as it were, in discharging the same function but using a different set of instruments. In his role as chronicler, most importantly, the narrator takes the prerogative to speak as an I that is simultaneously a We. He is himself first and foremost a man of Buczacz, flesh of the flesh of the town, although he has no historical embodiment that would locate him in actual events. He is at once absorbed into the collective conscience of the town and busily conducting the performance of memory under his own baton, a baton singularly inscribed with the proprietary pronoun I, if not with a proper name. It goes without saying, however, that by choosing to write about Buczacz in its “classic” era Agnon renounced his right to evoke personal childhood memories, as he did in such wonderful stories as “Hamitpaḥat” [The Kerchief], and, as pointed out above, to assimilate the figure of the narrator to his own autobiographical persona as he had done in Oreaḥ natah lalun [A Guest for the Night].

  The narrator is also an impresario of memory who hosts or stages the voices of others, even while he remains on stage. In Hamashal vehanimshal, for example, most of the story is given over to the tale told by the old shamash. It is the narrator who sets up the frame story and describes the provocation that sets the story about the tour of Hell in motion, and it is he who returns toward the end to convey its effects on the community. But the greater duration of the story is given over to the shamash’s own account of these extraordinary happenings. This hand-off, however, is not accomplished with complete serenity. Even though the crusty and acerbic attitudes of the old man set his voice apart as uniquely his, the narrator periodically expresses anxiety lest the two voices, his and the shamash’s, be confused. Throughout ‘Ir umelo’ah the narrator is busy and in control and highly self-aware of the decisions he is making to follow up one story line over another and whether to allow himself a particular digression—which he usually does—or hew to a linear presentation of plot. The presence of the narrator is felt as constantly exerting an executive agency.

  The narrator’s most conspicuous endowment is his omniscience. The narrator speaks from the present. It is, after all, the unspeakable news of the Holocaust that moves him to undertake telling the story of Buczacz. At the same time, however, the periods of the town’s history he has chosen to chronicle are not those about which he can have personal or eyewitness knowledge. ‘Ir umelo’ah focuses on a two-hundred-year span from the middle of the seventeenth century to the middle of the nineteenth. Even by using oral traditions and written records, no one could reasonably aspire to the omniscience the narrator claims for himself. This is exactly the nonrealistic, even magical, premise that Agnon lays down for the fundamental device that organizes his project. The narrator is a construct that is defined as a sapient, nonpersonal entity that has attained an exhaustive grasp of the history of Buczacz. His conscience is the repository of the pinqasim of the town for scores of generations. A man of faith loyal to the core norms of study and worship, he has no interest in history per se, that is, history in the modern, critical sense of the term.

  But he is passionately concerned about accuracy, and most of the asides and introductions and commentaries in which we hear his voice are preoccupied with asserting the reliability of his reporting and the authority of his knowledge. This is no pallid conception of reliability. The narrator knows what two characters said to each other, in their exact words, in a private conversation in the late seventeenth century; he knows what is in the heart of a merchant about to approach a Polish lord with a daring commercial proposition; he knows the text of the offer of rabbinic appointment that failed to lure a luminary to Buczacz; and he knows not only the desires of a poor yeshiva student but also the thoughts of the great fish he is transporting to a demanding gourmand. When he is not sure of a detail—say, whether it was eight coins or ten that were paid for a wagon ride 250 years ago—he readily admits his uncertainty and thereby implies that his authority on all matters not so stipulated is utterly trustworthy.

  Take this example from the beginning of Hamashal vehanimshal:

  There was in our beit midrash an old shamash named Reb Yeruham ben Tanhum. Some insist that his name was Reb Tanhum ben Yeruham and that it was in the Great Synagogue was where he served. Then there are those who claim that this name belongs not to the shamash but to the man who got involved with the him. I, who know only the names of those who served as shamash in the ten generations before I left my hometown, cannot make this determination. I can only tell the story.

  Rather than being a genuine confession of limitation, the fuzziness about the exact name and the exact place serves as a gesture of humility whose purpose is to make the opposite point. Despite the fact that the strange adventure that is about to be described in great detail took place well beyond ten generations ago, these few facts at the beginning of the story are the only ones to which any doubt attaches. And the very fact that these details are wrangled over with other, unnamed minds works only to strengthen the status of the events described in the story as indisputably part of the collective historical record.

  Agnon is playing here at something very deep yet elusive. There is of course no rational world in which a narrator can possess such infinite knowledge. Yet as readers we are prepared to recognize omniscience as a legitimate convention when it comes to modern fiction. Not only do we not question Flaubert’s
right to represent Emma Bovary’s innermost thoughts but we applaud his comprehensive penetration into her mind. And although Flaubert—a favorite of Agnon’s—would claim his revelations of Emma’s inner life to be true, he would also acknowledge them, proudly, as fiction. This is not the case with Agnon in ‘Ir umelo’ah. The texts of this collection are presented as stories, as sipurim, narratives that occupy a middle ground between chronicle and fiction; sipur is a supremely serviceable term for Agnon because it as much at home in the world of Hasidic piety as it is in the world of Kleist and Kafka. Yet his was not the short story perfected and aestheticized by Chekhov, Maupassant and Joyce but rather the kind of tale told by a storyteller in a world before the institutionalization of literature. In the case of ‘Ir umelo’ah the storyteller is not a primitive spinner of legends or folktales but a sophisticated and opinionated narrator-chronicler who curates and recirculates accounts of the key moments in the town’s history and vouches for their accuracy. The pseudo-traditionalism of this form provided Agnon with a creative, flexible instrument. Although the narrator’s values are aligned with the pious norms at the core of the stories, his responsibilities as a chronicler entail his reliable reporting of the full range of human behavior; and thus a gap is opened up that is at turns playful, ironic and subversive. In subtle and surreptitious ways, Agnon could appropriate the authenticity and authority of the traditional tale without renouncing the toolkit of modernism. Agnon thus wants—and gets—to have his literary cake and eat it too. He wants the freedom to imagine conversations, inner thoughts and the intimate particulars of behavior; and at the same time he denies that his stories are made up or lack the status of responsible accounts of historical occurrences. Agnon appropriates for himself a conception of storytelling that avoids the necessity of facing this either-or.