of the Jews from Spain in 1492. Bloom is certainly aware of this aspect of Scholem's research, but he swerves from it by arguing that the Kabbalists, spurred on by the anxiety of influence, formulated (or discovered) a paradigm for creative misreading, a psychology and a rhetoric that may be found throughout subsequent Western literary traditions. In Bloom's appropriation of Scholem's work, psychic and textual structures, always more amenable to speculative theory, takes precedence over historical spadework.
|
It is doubly ironic then that critics must follow Bloom's lead in dealing with Scholem while knowing full well that even to attempt to appropriate Scholem's efforts for literary purposes is to misinterpret or subvert them. But this is itself a lesson to be drawn from Scholem's historiographyat least according to Bloom. Cynthia Ozick reports that Scholem's response to Bloom's borrowings was simply to quip "It's a free country." 10 At the risk of making too much of an offhand remark, I believe that this is most revealing: freedom, while not a candidate for Alter's list of key words in Scholem's lexicon, is still a crucial concept in his analyses of texts and events. Freedom manifests itself as a desire for creative divergence and novelty in literary expression or religious experience. Its antithesis is an equally strong psychohistorical power, conservative, entrenched, resistant to innovation and suspicious of enthusiasm. But as Scholem declares in "Religious Authority and Mysticism," "A mystic may substitute his own opinion for that prescribed by authority, precisely because his opinion seems to stem from the very same authority." 11 The result, as Derrida would observe, is a perpetually decentered structure in which the source of authority can never be fully located, but instead calls continually for interpretationthe signature of exile. But unlike Derrida, Scholem (and his ephebe Bloom) cannot endorse freedom as post-humanist play. Exile remains exile, a painful "ontotheological" lack for which there is no adequate compensation, including the free play of interpretation. Thus freedom is compelled to contend with authority at every observable historical juncture.
|
One of Scholem's most crucial insights concerns the form such struggles take in religiousand textualtraditions. Because of his dialectical perspective, Scholem tends to see developments in these traditions as manifestations of the antitheses we have just identified. In "Religious Authority and Mysticism," he poses the textual aspect of the problem as follows: "where the authority is set forth in holy scripture, in documents bearing a character of revelation, the question
|
|