Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T21:35:55.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sholem Aleichem: Mythologist of the Mundane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

David G. Roskies
David G. Roskies
Affiliation:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, NY
Get access

Extract

What could be more obvious for a writer who called himself How–Do– You–Do than to place folklore and folk–speech at the center of his work? After all, it was his childhood friend Shmulik who had inducted him into the world of storytelling; ever since then, the celebrated author could have mined the treasures of Jewish myth and legend as his natural legacy. But Shmulik′s formative role in From the Fair was as much a fiction as the name Sholem Aleichem itself, which masked the true beginnings of a typical Russian–Jewish maskil named Rabinovitsh. Everything in the program of the Haskalah, as in Sholem Rabinovitsh's early career, militated against the discovery of folklore: the overwhelming antipathy of the Jewish Enlightenment to fantasy, superstition, and folk custom;2 Rabinovitsh's concern for fostering a highbrow literary culture in Yiddish based on the realistic portrayal of poverty, on social satire and stylistic discipline;3 and, perhaps most importantly, the young writer's adulation for the arch-maskil Abramovitsh- Mendele, who embodied this new critical standard.4 When, along with other of his contemporaries, Sholem Aleichem finally overcame these formidable obstacles and negotiated his way back to the folk, readers were so taken by his reinvention of Jewish folklore that they mistook it for the real thing.

Type
Articles
Information
AJS Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1-2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 27 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Roskies, David G., “Unfinished Business: Sholem Aleichem′s From the Fair,” Prooftexts 6 (1986): 73–74;Google ScholarMiron, Dan, Sholem Aleykhem: Person, Persona, Presence (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.

2. Miron, Dan, “Folklore and Antifolklore in the Yiddish Fiction of the Haskalah,” in Studies in Jewish Folklore, ed. Talmage, Frank (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), pp. 219–249.Google Scholar

3. Aleichem, Sholem. “Der yidisher dales in di beste verke fun undzere folks–shriftshteler,” supplement to Yudishes folksblat (St. Petersburg), 1888, pp. 1075–1090, 1101–1110, 1149–1157, 1183–1189, 1205–1216;Google Scholar, idem, Shomers mishpet, oder der sud prisyazhnik af ale romanen fun Shomer (Bardichev, 1888);Google ScholarReminik, H., “Sholem–Aleykhem in kampf far realizm in di 80er yorn,” Shtern (Minsk), nos. 5–6 (1938): 122–148.Google Scholar

4. Miron, Dan, A Traveler Disguised: A Study in the Rise of Yiddish Fiction in the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1971), chap. 2.Google Scholar

5. The following survey of myth and fantasy in Hebrew literature from the Haskalah until the turn of the century is based on Dan Miron, Bo′ah, laylah: ha–sifrut ha–′ivril bein higayyon I′ee–gayyon be–mifneh ha–me′ah ha–′esrim (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1987), esp. pp. 11–22, 86–96.

6. Abramovitsh, S. Y., Mishpat Shalom (Vilna: Rom, 1860), pp. 9–10, as quoted by Miron, Bo′ah, laylah. p. 89.Google Scholar

7. How the ideological shift of the 1880s affected Yiddish literature has been covered most extensively by Oyslender, Nokhem in “Der yunger Sholem–Aleykhem un zayn roman ‘Stempenyu,’” in Shriftn fun der katedre far yidisher kullur bay der alukrainisher visnshaftlekher akademye 1 (1928): 5–72.Google Scholar

8. Miron, Dan, “Batrakhtungen vegn klasishn imazh fun shtetl in der yidisher beletristik,” in Der imazh fun shtetl: dray literarishe shludyes (New York, 1981), pp. 19–138.Google Scholar

9. Sholem Aleichem, “Tmunot u–tslalim mihayyei hayehudim bi–Mazepevka” (188–1890), in Ktavim ivriyim, ed. Chone Shmeruk (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 87–156. Most relevant to my thesis is the story called “Ha′otsar” (pp. 106v115), in which Sholem Aleichem burlesques the legend of the lost treasure. On this, see Dan Miron, “Otsarot muqdamim,” in Shalom Aleichem: Masol meshulavot, 2d rev. ed. (Ramat Gan, ca. 1980), pp. 244v256.

10. See, for example, AMaD (Ayzik–Meyer Dik), Yudis di tsveyte: ayn herlekhe royber geshikhte in Vilne (Vilna, 1875) and Sholem der karabelnik (Vilna, 1877). In contrast, Dik′s Di gayster geshikhtn (Vilna, 1871) recounts incidents from the author′s life in Vilna and Nesvizh which appeared to be supernatural but whose rational cause was eventually revealed

11. Mesires–nefesh, in Ale verk fun Y. L. Perels, 11 vols. (New York, 1947–1948), 5:207–251. Trans, as “Devotion Without End” in A Treasury of Yiddish Stories, ed. Irving Howe and Eliezer Greenberg (New York, 1954), pp. 118–148.Google Scholar

12. For more on Peretz′s reinvention of Jewish folk narrative, see Gershon Shaked, Ha sipporet ha–iwit 1880–1970, vol. 1 (Israel, 1977), pp. 140–160; Roskies, David G., “Peretses shaferisher farrat fun der yidisher folks–mayse,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 349–355.Google Scholar

13. Miron, Bo′ah, laylah, pp. 91–92.

14. All references are to the critical ed. of Dos meserl prepared by ChoneShmeruk (Jerusalem and Cincinnati, 1983) as a sample text of the Complete Edition of Sholem Aleykhem′s Works.

15. On the reappropriation of traditional narratives, see David C. Jacobson, Modern Midrash: The Retelling of Traditional Jewish Narratives by Twentieth–Century Hebrew Writers (Albany, 1987).

16. Analyzing Sholem Aleichem′s attitudes towards Yiddish and Hebrew, Abraham Novershtern arrives at a similar conclusion. See “Sholem–Alyekhem un zayn shtelung tsu der shprakhn–frage,” Di goldene keyt 74 (1971): 167.Google Scholar

17. Weisser, Albert, The Modern Renaissance of Jewish Music: Events and Figures [inj Eastern Europe and America (New York, 1954), chap. 3.Google Scholar

18. Meisel, Nachman, “Sholem Aleichem and His ′Find′,” in Sholem Aleichem Panorama, ed. Grafstein, Melech (London, Ont., 1948), p. 46–50.Google Scholar

19. Aleichem, Sholem, “A briv tsum h′ Engel fun′m ‘Voskhod’,” Deryid 3, no. 24 (June 13, 1901): 14–16.Google Scholar

20. Evreiskie narodniye pesni v Rossi, ed. S. M. Ginsburg and P. S. Marek (St. Petersburg, 1901), no. 82.

21. On Sholem Aleichem′s interest in folklore, see I. Mitlman and Kh. Nadel, “Sholem– Aleykhem der redaktor–aroysgeber,” in Sholem–Aleykhem: zamlung fun kritishe arliklen un maleryaln (Kiev, 1940), p. 191.

22. Y. D. Berkovitsh, Undzere rishoynim, 5 vols. (Tel Aviv, 1966), 4:70.

23. See Even–Zohar, Itamar, “The Relations between Primary and Secondary Systems in the Literary Polysystem” (1973), in Papers in Historical Poetics (Tel Aviv, 1978), pp. 14–20.Google Scholar

24. This is an adaptation of Dov Sadan′s outlined in his seminal essay “Three Foundations [Sholem Aleichem and the Yiddish Literary Tradition]” (1959), trans, in Proofte.xls 6 (1986): 55–63.Google Scholar

25. The precise genealogy of Sholem Aleichem′s monologues has never been established. Sadan argues for a direct link with the “naive” and “satiric” monologues of the Galician Haskalah. Victor Erlich implies a connection to the Russian skaz in “A Note on the Monologue as a Literary Form: Sholem Aleichem′s ‘Monolgn’–A Test Case,” in For Max Weinreich on His Seventieth Birthday: Studies in Jewish Languages, Literature, and Society, ed. Lucy Dawidowicz (The Hague, 1964), pp. 44–50. In “Magidishe maskes fun Markuze biz Mendele” (Paper read at the Second International Conference on Research in Yiddish Language and Literature, Oxford, July 11, 1983), I first suggested that the Tevye monologues be read in the context of “maggidic masks” in Yiddish Haskalah literature.

26. Surprisingly little work has been done on the epistolary genre in nineteenth–century Yiddish literature. The only studies I know of are Yehude Elzet [Judah Loeb Zlotnick], Mil hundert yor tsurik: Shtudien in dem amolikn inerlekhn yidishn lebn (Montreal, 1927) and Weinreich, Max, “Lewin Liondor′s brivn–shteler,” YlVO–bleter 18 (1941): 109–112Google Scholar. Prior to writing Menakhem–Mendl, Sholem Aleichem experimented with the epistolary form in “Di ibergekhapte briv af der post” (1883–1884). See the Soviet ed. of Ale verk (Moscow, 1948), 1:54–155, 487–51 1.

27. Oyzer Tsinkes un di tsig (Vilna, 1868), described by Haim Liberman in “La–bibliografia shel A. M. Dik,” Ohel RaHeL (Brooklyn, 1980), pp. 498–499. The only extant copy of this chapbook is in the private library of the Lubavitsher Rebbe. All my efforts since 1971 to secure a Xeroxed copy of this book have failed.

28. On the concepts of “closed” and “open” forms, see Eco, Umberto, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington, 1984).Google Scholar

29. Fanger, Donald, The Creation of Nikolai Gogol (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), p. 100. For more on the Gogol connection, see I. J. Trunk, Sholem–Aleykhem: zayn vezn un zayne verk (Warsaw, 1937), pp. 41^17, and David G. Roskies, “The Storyteller as Hero,” The New Republic. 9 November 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Aleichem, Sholem, A mayse on an ek (Warsaw, 1901). The caption to this first version reads: “Aroysgenumen fun an altn pinkes un baputst.” References to the Yiddish text (Y) are from “Der farkishefter shnayder” in Mayses un monologn, vol. 13 of the Progres ed. (Warsaw, 1913), pp. 3–51. The English trans. (E) by Leonard Wolf is in TheBestofSholom Aleichem, ed. Irving Howe and Ruth R. Wisse (New York, 1982), pp. 3–46.Google Scholar

31. Eisenzweig, Uri, “Le Chtettl, Retroactivement (le Tailleur ensorcele, de Cholem Aleichem),” Territoires occupes de iimaginaire juif (Paris, 1980), pp. 196–198.Google Scholar

32. On this, see Dov Sadan, “Kino shekosuv: araynfir–bamerkn tsu Tevye dem milkhikers toyres,” in Tsvishn vayl un noent: eseyen, shtudyes, briv (Tel Aviv, 1982), pp. 9–23.

33. The satiric use of parasitic speech patterns in nineteenth–century Yiddish fiction and drama has occupied all of the major scholars in the field. For the most seminal statements, some of which have a direct bearing on Sholem Aleichem, see Wiener, Meyer, “Di rol fun shprakh–folkor in der yidisher literature,” Shriftn (Kiev) 1 (1928): 73–129; Miron, A Traveler Disguised, esp. pp. 169–179; and Benjamin Hrushovski, “Dekonstruktsiah shel dibbur: Shalom Aleichem veha–semiotika shel ha–folklor ha–yehudi,” afterword to his trans, of Tevye hahalban ve–monologim (Tel Aviv, 1983), pp. 195–212.Google Scholar

34. Cf. Fanger, The Creation of Nikolai Gogol, p. 236.

35. Levi–Strauss, Claude, “The Structural Study of Myth,” in Myth: A Symposium, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok (Bloomington and London, 1970), pp. 81–106.Google Scholar

36. For an analysis of this motif in Oyiem–habe, see Ruth R. Wisse, Sholem Aleichem and the Art of Communication (Syracuse, 1979), pp. 19–21. Cf. also Iber a hill (“On Account of a Hat”), where the train station in Zlodeyevke functions as an enchanted setting.

37. Eisenzweig, “Le Chtettl,” p. 149.

38. Cf. the following in Stith Thompson′s Motif–Index of Folk Literature, rev. ed., 6 vols. (Bloomington and London, 1966): man transformed into a goat (D 134), goat′s milk is inexhaustible (D 1652.3.2), revenant as goat (E 423.1.9), the devil in the form of a goat (G 303.3.3.1.6), and esp. tailor associated with a goat (X 222).

39. Undzere hshoynim, 2:73.

40. These are collected in the following volumes of Ale verk in the Folksfond ed.: Fun peysekh biz peysekh (vol. 2); Lekoved yontef (vols. 22–23), as well as in many of the Mayses far yidishe kinder (Vols. 8–9) which also double as holiday tales.

41. Sholem Aleichem, “Der oyrekh” (1906), in vol. 2 of Lekoved yontef, vol. 18 of Ale verk in the Folksfond ed. (New York, 1925), pp. 114–115. Etta Blum′s trans., quoted here from The Best of Sholom Aleichem, p. 288, does not quite capture the incantation of loss.

42. The first quotation is from “Konkurentn” (1903), Fun peysekh biz peysekh, vol. 2 of Ale verk (New York, 1925), p. 140. The second is from “Di fon” (1900), Felitonen (Tel Aviv, 1976), p. 25.Google Scholar

43. Here I take issue with David Neal Miller, who argued: “the logic of fiction insists upon unhappy endings, the vocation of the storyteller upon happy ones.” See ′“Don′t Force Me to Tell You the Ending”: Closure in the Short Fiction of Sh. Rabinovitsh (Sholem–Aleykhem),“ Neophilologus (Amsterdam) 66 (1982): 106.Google Scholar

44. In a letter of 1 May 1909 to his Yiddish publisher Y. Lidsky, Sholem Aleichem wrote: ”Neither you nor I should publicize the ′Tale Without an End,′ because what you have is the revised copy (′The Haunted Tailor′).“ Two years later he instructed his son–in–law Berkovitsh to publish the story with its new ending (letters of 10 and 24 March 1911, in Russian). I am indebted to Dr. Abraham Novershtern for this information. As mentioned earlier, this new ending did not appear in print until 1913.

45. Roskies, ”Unfinished Business,“ pp. 73–74.