If the contradictions which we meet in reading Ozick emerge, as I have been arguing, from her problematic orientation to history, then what is necessary for both our interpretive and critical tasks is insight into the Jewish self-understanding of history. Yerushalmi's Zakhor provides us with just such insight. As Yerushalmi demonstrates throughout his brooding survey, history in the modern sense of a rational analysis of the past stands peculiarly at odds with the traditional Jewish relationship to the past through memory. In the Bible, "It is above all God's acts of intervention in history, and man's responses to them, be they positive or negative, that must be recalled." 25 "Historiography," Yerushalmi continues, "is but one expression of the awareness that history is meaningful and of the need to remember, and neither meaning nor memory ultimately depends upon it." 26 In the post-biblical period, the Jews inherit what they believe to be a ''revealed pattern of the whole of history"; thus the normative attitude toward the past, especially for the Rabbis, becomes "an ongoing exploration of the meaning of the history bequeathed to them, striving to interpret it in living terms for their own and later generations." 27 With few exceptions, this religious, memory-based attitude toward the past dominates Jewish culture up until the Haskalah in the late eighteenth century and the subsequent movement to uncover Jewish history in the modern manner called the Wissenschaft des Judentums . 28 Only at this point, as Yerushalmi says, "do we really find, for the first time, a Jewish historiography divorced from Jewish collective memory and, in crucial respects, thoroughly at odds with it." 29
|
It is within these circumstances, so completely "the product of rupture" (as understood by both Yerushalmi the historian and Bloom the literary theorist) that we can locate Ozick's struggle for historicity. Ozick's denial of rupture, her emphasis on normative patterns of belief and behavior, her attempt to restore Jewish fiction to its Aggadic role, are all signs that her conception of the past has less to do with Jewish history and more to do with Jewish memory. When "the true image of the past flits by" for Ozick, it is the remembered past, the past of God's interventions and Israel's responses. Commenting on this traditional view of the past, Bloom pointedly notes that "Because the intervention is for our response, we can be tempted to believe we are everything; because the intervener is incommensurate with us, we can fear that we are nothing." 30 It is the latter possibility, the fear that we are nothing and that we have failed in our response, which moves Ozick so strongly in her recent work.
|
|