Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:36:57.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poetics of Composition of the Hebrew Short Story in the Haskalah Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Yair Mazor
Yair Mazor
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Get access

Extract

The main goal of this paper is to determine and describe the poetics of composition of the Hebrew short story in the Enlightenment (Haskalah) period. (The Haskalah was a major literary movement in Hebrew literature, mainly in Germany, Austria, and Russia, from 1780 to 1870. This movement evolved in three distinct phases: neoclassic, romantic, and realistic.) The narrative of the Haskalah period has received considerable attention from many critics and researchers, beginning with the first critics of Hebrew literature (such as Kovner, Brainin, Paperna, and Lilienblum), through critics of the early twentieth century (such as Feitelson, Robinson, Zitron, Zinberg, Frischmann, Slouschz, Shapira, Klausner, and Lachower), up to contemporary critics (Patterson, Weinfeld, Wersses, Shaked, Miron, Feingold, and others).

Type
Articles
Information
AJS Review , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1985 , pp. 89 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1985

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. The specific works of all these critics are mentioned in the course of this paper.

2. For instance, the most useful generations summarized by Shaked; see Shaked, Gershon, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivril 1880–1970[The Hebrew narrative 1880–1970] (Tel Aviv: Keter ha-Kibbutz ha-Me'uḥad, 1928), pp. 48–51.Google Scholar

3. Although these weaknesses in numerous novels in the corpus are undoubtedly not to be denied, many of the novels which carry these compositional faults also include many other compositional phenomena which are highly impressive and well wrought. Thus, the obvious weaknesses in these novels led most critics to make normative generalizations and to abandon any discussion of other compositional phenomena that exist in the same corpus and deserve a favorable evaluation. This issue has been discussed in detail in Yair Mazor, “Aspects and Trends in the Poetics of Composition in Hebrew Realistic Narrative in the Enlightenment Period” [Hebrew] (doctoral diss., Tel Aviv University, 1981).

4. Klausner was the critic who outlined the “period of the Hebrew realistic literature”—as he puts it—to these exact years; see Klausner, Joseph, Historyah shel ha-Sifrut ha-lvrit ha-Hadashah[History of modern Hebrew literature] (Jerusalem: Achisaph, 1955), vol. 3, p. 350.Google Scholar

5. James, Miller, ed., Theory of Fiction: Henry James(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1922), “The Art of Fiction,” p. 33.Google Scholar

6. Ibid, p. 35.

7. Shapira, Ḥayyim N., Toledo ha-Sifrut ha-lvrit ha-Ḥadashah[History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Massada, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 162.Google Scholar

8. Halkin, Simon, Mavoh la-Sipporet ha-lvrit[Approach to Hebrew narrative], ed. Tsofia, Hillel (Jerusalem: Mifal ha-Shikhpul, Hebrew University, 1958), pp. 228, 233.Google Scholar

9. Ewen, Joseph, Millon Munaḥei ha-Sipporet[Dictionary of narrative terms] (Jerusalem: Academon, Hebrew University, 1958), p. 15.Google Scholar

10. Shaanan, Avraham, Ha-Sifrut ha-lvrit ha-Hadashah li-Zerameha[Currents of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Massada, 1962), vol. 1, p. 36.Google Scholar

11. See Levin, Harry, Concepts of Criticism(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 62.Google Scholar

12. See Frye, Northrop, Anatomy of Criticism(New York: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 49Google Scholar; Wellek, René, Concepts of Criticism(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 24Google Scholar; Levin, , Concepts of Criticism, p. 233Google Scholar; Roman Jakobson, “Al ha-Realism ba-Omanut” [About realism in art], Ha-Sifrut2, no. 2 (January 1920): 269; Ewen, Millon Munaḥey ha-Sipporet, p. 14; Brinker, Menachem, Mi-Ba'ad la-Medumeh[From behind the imaginary] (Tel Aviv: Israeli Institute of Poetics and Semiotics, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me'uhad, 1980), p. 90.Google Scholar

13. Grant, Damian, Realism(London: Methuen, 1920), p. 1.Google Scholar

14. Wellek, René and Warren, Austin, Theory of Literature(1943; New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. 256.Google Scholar

15. See Streit, Shalom, Ba-Alol ha-Shahar[As dawn rises] (Tel Aviv: Hedim, 1937), pp. 104–105Google Scholar; Lachower, Fishel, Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-Ḥadashah[History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1966), vol. 2, p. 238Google Scholar; Ribalow, Menachem, “Al Kever Mordechai David Brandstaedter-ha-Sofer” [Brandstaedter the author-in front of his tomb], Hadoar 7, no. 28 (1928): 438–440Google Scholar; Klausner, Joseph, “Mordechai David Brandstaedter,” Ketuvim 2, no. 37 (1928)Google Scholar: 1; Baron, Shelomoh, “Al Kever Mordechai David Brandstaedter-ha-Ish” [Brandstaedter the man-in front of his tomb], Hadoar 7, no. 28 (1928): 440–441Google Scholar; Ben-Or, Aharon, Toledol ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit ha-Ḥadashah[History of modern Hebrew literature] (Tel Aviv: Izre'l, 1949), vol. 1, p. 316Google Scholar; Ben-Menachem, Moshe, “Mordechai David Brandstaedter,” Ha-Poel ha-Za'ir 25, nos. 1–3 (1954): 19Google Scholar; Pelli, Moshe, “Darkho ha-Sippurit shel M. D. Brandstaedter be-“Mordechai Kizyavitch”” [Brandstaedter's way of narration of his story “Mordechai Kizyavitch”], Bitzaron, no. 67 (1976), pp. 28–30.Google Scholar

16. Shaanan summarizes the many aspects of this compositional error in Ayit Ẓavua;see Shaanan, , Ha-Sifrut ha-Iwit ha-tfadashah li'zerameha, vol. 1, p. 235.Google Scholar

17. See Reuben, Brainin, ed., Me'ah Mikhtavim: Mikhtevei Perez ben Moshe Smolenskin[One hundred letters: The letters of Perez ben Moshe Smolenskin] (Vilna, 1901), pp. 31–32.Google Scholar

18. See Mazor, , “Aspects and Trends in the Poetics of Composition,” esp. pp. 23–33, 49–50, 55–56, 58–62, 66–67, 90–109, 114–126, 141–181.Google Scholar

19. About literary retardation and its aesthetic functions, see Victor Erlich, Russian Formalism(The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1969).

20. The suspension of expositional information as a literary device was first discussed by ihe Russian formalists; see T. L. Lemon and N. J. Reis, eds., Russian Formalist Criticism, p. 73. Later this phenomenon was discussed by the following: Ingarden, Roman, The Literary Work of An, trans. G. G. Grabowicz (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1973), pp. 38–40Google Scholar; Beardsley, C. M., Aesthetics(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), pp. 242–245Google Scholar; Iser, Wolfgang, “Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response in Prose-Fiction,” in Aspects of Narrralive, ed. Miller, J. H. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 8Google Scholar. A very detailed discussion of this compositional phenomenon is to be found in Sternberg, Meir, Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp. 50–53.Google Scholar

21. The first critic who systematically dealt with the analogy as a major compositional pattern was Fergusson; see Fergusson, Francis, The Idea of a Theater (New York: Doubleday, 1949), pp. 109–110Google Scholar, 114–123, 139–144. The concept of the analogy was thoroughly developed by Empson; see Empson, William, Some Versions of Pastoral(New York: New Directions, 1950), pp. 27–88Google Scholar. The phenomenon of the analogy in the English novel has been discussed by Stang, Richard, The Theory of the Novel in England 1850–1870(New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), pp. 15–133.Google Scholar

22. Fabula-the chronological sequence of the fictional events in the piece. Sujet-the sequence of the fictional events as it is wrought and presented in the piece, which in many cases contradicts the chronological sequence. A well-known example of manipulation of the sujetin the order of the fabulais the opening of the piece in medias res.See Lemon and Reis, Russian Formalist Criticism, p. 63. E. M. Forster translated fabulaas “story” and sujetas “plot”; but this seems to be a rather confusing translation, as Forster admits to another meaning of the terms; see E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel(London, 1961), p. 35.

23. The first critic to discuss the dynamic nature of the literary text was Lessing; see Lessing, G. E., Laocoon(1766; New York: Noonday Press, 1957)Google Scholar. The first modern critics to deal with the dynamics of the literary text were Ingarden, Mukarovsky, and Tynjanov; see lngarden. Literary Work of Art, pp. 9–145; Mukarovsky, Jan, On Poetic Language, trans, and ed. J., Burbank and P., Steiner (1940; Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 1976), pp. 50–59Google Scholar; Frank, Joseph, “Spatial Form in Modern Literature,” in Criticism, ed. M., Schorer (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), pp. 379–392Google Scholar; Fish, S. E., “Literature and the Reader: Effective Stylislics,” New Literary History 2, no. 1 (Autumn 1920): 123–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Iser, “Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response,” 1–45. This issue has been impressively developed by Menachem Perry in many works; see esp. Perry, “The Dynamics of the Literary Text” [Hebrew], Ha-Sifrut, no. 28 (April 1929), pp. 6–46. A book which is wholly dedicated to this topic is Mazor, Yair, The Dynamics of Motifs in Selected Works of S. Y. Agnon[Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dekel Academic Press, 1979).Google Scholar

24. An adequate discussion of these terms and their literary functions will be found in Booth, W. C., The Rhetoric of Fiction(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 3–20Google Scholar. Also see Lubock, Percy, The Craft of Fiction(New York: Viking Press, 1963), p. 110.Google Scholar

25. Narrative time-the duration of the narrative process; narrated time-the duration of the narrated material. See Stanzel, Franz, Narrative Situations in the Novel(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971), p. 17.Google Scholar

26. See M. D. Brandstaedter, Sippurim[Stories], ed. B. A. Feingold (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1974), pp. 116–160.

27. Eleazar, , Schulmann, Ozar Sippurim[Collected Stories] (Warsaw: S. B. Schwarzberg, 1894), pp. 7–29.Google Scholar

28. All translations from the Hebrew have been done by this writer—Y.M.

29. In Ha-Shaḥar[The dawn], 6 (1871): 157–169, 190–206, 254–270.

30. See above, n. 22.

31. See Iser, “Indeterminancy and the Reader's Response,” p. 292.Google Scholar

32. Dr. Betty Diamond, in conversation with this writer.

33. See Ingarden, Roman, The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, trans. R. A. Crowley and K. R. Olson (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1937), p. 87Google Scholar; Orwell, George, Inside the Whale and Other Essays(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1957), p. 142; Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar

34. For various historical reasons, which had social, cultural, and aesthetic consequences, there was a lapse in the creation of Hebrew literature—especially prose fiction—in Europe during the period from the end of the sixteenth century up to the very end of the eighteenth century.

35. See Patterson, David, The Hebrew Novel in Czarisl Russia(Edinburgh: At the University Press, 1964), pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

36. See Stang, , Theory of the Novel in England, pp. 118–119Google Scholar